Banner Ads that lie - or misinform - in the best interests of TB?

[Bruce Lindfield]

OK - I know Paul has to pay the bills and this is a money-making business - but in the last few days the main banner ad has been saying things like - 'you have won an Audi' etc.

And it is clearly lying - as it has said for the last 3 days - you are visitor number 999,999 - that's just impossible!

So - is this moral, fair ...? I am OK with Ads that are making reasonable claims - but Ads that just lie to draw you in - do we really want to be supporting such unscrupulous and immoral advertisers - IMO this is the worst kind of thing as it makes people cynical about advertising and really only exploits the most vulnerable people...?

Realistically nobody is going to click on those Ads and it only "tarnishes" both TB as a whole and any advertisers who are using the service - not good for anybody?

I even have a feeling that this kind of thing - obviously untrue claims in Ads - is illegal in the UK and I could report them to the Trading Standards Authority!

But of course I don't want to do that and would rather that something be done about it 'inhouse'..?

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

So in the last few days the main banner ad has been saying things like - 'you have won an Audi' etc.

And it is clearly lying - as it has said for the last 3 days - you are visitor number 999,999 - that's just impossible!

This is what I mean :

[Darkstrike]

I've never got a message like that.



Also, isn't that the Google bar, I believe he has no control over it, just whatever ad's pop up from Google.

[Hawaii Islander]

The Google bar displays banner ads that relate to the general theme of the topic of the thread. If we discuss Pop Tarts and Farts, we're likely to see some interesting and possibly funny banner ads!

[Bruce Lindfield]

I can see the point of context-related Ads and I have occasionally clicked on ads for Double Bass accessories...!

But this is not related to anything and surely it must be possible to flag up to somebody that an Ad is dishonest, misleading and must be breaking any voluntary codes of practice ?

It would be possible to do this in the UK?

[Darkstrike]

Originally Posted by Hawaii Islander

The Google bar displays banner ads that relate to the general theme of the topic of the thread. If we discuss Pop Tarts and Farts, we're likely to see some interesting and possibly funny banner ads!

Now that you mention it, while looking at this thread, it shows ad's for setting up banner ad's.

[kherber]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

IMO this is the worst kind of thing as it makes people cynical about advertising...

Truly. In a world gone mad, the advertising industry remains our last shining beacon of truth and hope. Without it, we would be plunged back into the darkness and chaos from which we came.

Stop the insanity!

Doc

(who just couldn't resist)

[Bruce Lindfield]

Well - what I mean is that dishonest and misleading Ads do nobody any favours - least of all other Advertisers, as people will be wary of clicking on anything - once bitten twice shy..?

So - there are good advertisers - like Upton Bass, Bass Central etc .... and their image is being tarnished by being linked with this kind of rubbish!

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by kherber

Truly. In a world gone mad, the advertising industry remains our last shining beacon of truth and hope. Without it, we would be plunged back into the darkness and chaos from which we came.

Stop the insanity!

Doc

(who just couldn't resist)

Mike

[Bruce Lindfield]

Well I don't know about where you are - but over here, Ads that actually lie or mislead are regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/ - here's an example :

Owen Gibson, media correspondent The Guardian, Wednesday July 25 2007

Penelope Cruz in a L'Oreal mascara advert. The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that this broke industry rules because she was wearing false eyelashes.

An advertising campaign for a new L'Oréal mascara starring Penelope Cruz amounted to a lot less than promised because the actor was wearing false eyelashes, according to the advertising watchdog.

Viewers were told that L'Oréal's new "telescopic" mascara made lashes up to 60% longer, but the cosmetics giant was forced to admit that Cruz, star of Volver and Vanilla Sky, was wearing a "few" cosmetic lashes inserted into her natural ones to fill in gaps. The Advertising Standards Authority said press and TV adverts exaggerated the effect the mascara had on natural eyelashes. A string of cosmetics companies have been found guilty of making misleading claims about make-up and shampoo in recent years.

After an investigation, the watchdog found L'Oréal's adverts in breach of advertising rules. While Cruz was fluttering her eyelashes, she told viewers the effect was "astronomical". L'Oréal argued that its telescopic mascara could make lashes appear up to 60% longer, regardless of whether the lashes were real or artificial.

The cosmetics giant provided a signed affidavit from Cruz and her make-up artist saying the actress had only been wearing a few individual fake lashes. But the ASA told L'Oréal to include a clarification in future adverts making clear when models were wearing false eyelashes. L'Oréal must also make clear its "up to 60% longer" claim refers to the appearance of eyelashes and not to their actual length, the watchdog said.

In response, L'Oréal said: "It is common industry practice to make use of some artificial lashes in order to ensure a consistent lash line under filming or shooting conditions. The ASA had previously accepted on more than one occasion that this industry practice was not misleading."

But it said it would comply with the ruling in future. L'Oréal last clashed with the ASA in 2005 over advertising for a wrinkle cream featuring Claudia Schiffer.

[Bruce Lindfield]

They actually investigated this subject in 2004 :

ASA News
Online In Line - Internet Ad Survey
15 October 2004

Only 1% of Internet banner and pop-up advertisements fall foul of the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion (the Codes), according to new Advertising Standards Authority compliance research published today (10 April 2003).

The Internet Banner and Pop-up Advertisements Survey 2002, the first of its kind conducted by the ASA, covers a representative sample of more than 600 banners and pop-ups in paid-for-space assessed over a six-month period. Only one banner advertisement - for a car - breached the Codes and had already had complaints about it upheld by the ASA Council.

The survey found that banner and pop-up ads tend to contain simple messages and basic information in contrast to the detailed claims that may cause problems when used in other media. Although many of the ads surveyed did not include important terms and conditions it was considered that the ads were acceptable because users could easily click on the banner ad to access these on the advertisers' website.

However, 37 of the advertisements surveyed were deemed to be 'questionable' by researchers. These ads typically included price or other claims that would need to be supported with evidence, or appeared on inappropriate websites. Most of the questionable advertisements were for betting and gaming websites and appeared on sites that could appeal to under-18s. The inclusion of questionable websites brings the overall compliance rate down to 94%,

Danny Meadows-Klue, Chief Executive Officer of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), welcomed the surveys findings: "This survey reflects positively on our industry's commitment to self-regulation. Whilst we are confident that this will give the industry the confidence to accelerate this market faster we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. In order for the high standards to continue into the future, we must carry on complying with the industry's own Code".

[kherber]

I think the U.S., for better or worse, takes a more Darwinian view of the problem. It's cheap, efficient, and occasionally offers some entertaiment when some dope tries something stupid he saw on TV, and ends up on TV himself!

I'm a pretty compassionate guy, but I question how much time, effort, and money my society should spend trying to save the six stupidest people in the country from themselves. False eyelashes or not, the ad is there to convince women that if they buy this makeup, they'll look like Penelope Cruz.

Back to the topic: anyone stupid enough to click on that banner ad, and actually be upset they didn't win a free car, and then logically come to the conclusion that Upton Bass is playing the same game, probably isn't smart enough to play bass, anyway. They should probably consider guitar instead.

Doc

[mike_v_s]

I understand your point, Bruce, but in this day and age, who REALLY thinks that they've won an Audi when a banner ad says so?

Mike

[Bruce Lindfield]

So what is the point in having them...?

We are happy for advertisers to lie blatanty...?

That to me is the thin end of the wedge of ads being able to say anything and will serve no purpose..how does that benefit anybody?

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

So what is the point in having them...?

Revenue.

We are happy for advertisers to lie blatanty...?

I accept that ALL advertising is slanted in an effort to get my dollar.Some do it blatantly, some don't. When you see an ad that claims "best service north of the equator!!", do you believe it?

That to me is the thin end of the wedge of ads being able to say anything and will serve no purpose..how does that benefit anybody?

I think that edge has been blurred since the day one guy tried to pawn his dull hand ax off on his fellow Cro Magnon as "good as new".

Mike

[kherber]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

So what is the point in having them...?

Somebody makes money.

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

We are happy for advertisers to lie blatanty...?

Not me, but I'm far more concerned about the blatant lies of governments than worried about being disappointed my canned chicken noodle soup isn't as "chunky" as the ad led me to believe.

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

That to me is the thin end of the wedge of ads being able to say anything and will serve no purpose..how does that benefit anybody?

Other than making somebody, somewhere, some money, not at all. But that's a lot of peoples' jobs, unfortunately. Jobs not necessarily about deception, but ultimately of no real benefit to society.

Lots of things could be done to make society better, but who makes the rules? (I hope it's me.)

Doc

[Bruce Lindfield]

But if nobody takes the Ads seriously - then how is anybody going to make any money ..?

If nobody clicks on any Ads as some are so ludicrous - then how will anybody make any money?

And if the Advertisers make no money - then they won't be paying TB in future...

Surely it pays all round for Ads to be reasonable and sensible?

[kherber]

Originally Posted by mike_v_s

Revenue.

Originally Posted by kherber

Somebody makes money.

Please excuse all this. I may be having another one of my Tyler Durden moments. It's probably time to reassess my meds.

Doc

[Bruce Lindfield]

Those people saying that you have won an Audi are not going to make any money - they are just 'tarnishing' the good name of others for no purpose - nobody is going to click on those Ads as they are ridiculous - so again I say what is the point of allowing them?

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

But if nobody takes the Ads seriously - then how is anybody going to make any money ..?

If nobody clicks on any Ads as some are so ludicrous - then how will anybody make any money?

And if the Advertisers make no money - then they won't be paying TB in future...

Surely it pays all round for Ads to be reasonable and sensible?

I've never clicked on an ad on this site (well, maybe TPB once). I'm not really concerned about what happens if nobody clicks on them. With any luck the whole banner ad thing will die and I won't have to make the effort to scroll past them. As for "reasonable and sensible", I feel the burden lies on the consumer.

Mike