News today

« Findhorn cuts environmental impact - but keeps flying | Main | Money for public access 'misspent' by councils »

Comments

Alex

Nice article.

Off course any company will modify its marketing direction to that which is most sensitive in the market at the given time. This is the most effective way to market. Given the sensitivity and gravity of the issue at hand though, it is of utmost importance that claims made in the media be them advertising of editorial or infomercial (potentially the most misleading), are of verifiable integrity.

A very positive step would be that any 'grey' claims in advertising literature must always be in the context of hard verifiable and provable (or better, but more difficult, verified!) facts.

Somehow I cannot see the advertising industry coming anywhere in reaching such a level voluntarily. Methinks that regulation should be enacted and the sooner the better.

Also the penalties for offenders seems very lax indeed. Retraction is a very poor disincentive.
The penalty must be equal or more severe than the offense. I would advocate against fines since they are difficult to equate to any marketing potency.
Instead offenders must run an equivalently exposed advert similarly styled and the same duration in time, stating its apology and the exact misinformation that was advertised in the offending material.
Let the publics mind be correctly set on the facts that the offender miss represented, and let it be done in a similar manner as the offense.
I am sure this would prove to be a huge deterrent!

The comments to this entry are closed.