But what do we call a relevant relationship? If Marco Borsato was indeed not paid for his tweets, or received a Nespresso machine or cups as a gift to write about Nespresso, then there is no relevant relationship. But does that also mean more credibility? Marco tweeted it out of pure passion for his creamy cup of coffee. Not because he got something in return from Nespresso.
Fans can breathe a sigh of relief: there was no #adv or #spon in the tweet, so Marco meant it all sincerely and they can go buy Nespresso with a clear conscience, without feeling like they were pressured into it by that clever advertiser who paid your hero. Because admitting that you buy something because it was advertised, that's not possible, right? That would be like admitting that advertising works.
Recognizable
Article 3a: Advertising via Social Media must be clearly recognizable as such. 'Recognizable'. Just as the usually tiny text between brackets at the top of an advertorial must make it clear that this is paid content in print media, messages on social media must also be recognizable as being 'paid' content.
sponge advIf it were up to the Advertising Code Foundation and the DDMA , microblogs such as tweets would from now on be provided with hashtags such as #spon (sponsored) or #adv (advertisement) if someone says something for which they are rewarded.
For other social media, the advertising code even provides quite explicit examples of how to indicate when an advertiser rewards the distributor for telling about their product or service. For example: “Disclaimer, I received this printer/phone/tablet for free from HP/Apple/Samsung to test.” In personal weblogs: “Brand X sent me product name Y.” Or, in responses in online forums: “The company/brand encouraged me to write this message.”
Wasn't the Dutch Advertising Code also sufficient for social media? From the NRC :
“1. Advertising is understood to mean: any public and/or systematic direct or tunisia mobile phone number list indirect recommendation of goods, services and/or ideas by an advertiser or wholly or partly for the benefit of the advertiser, with or without the assistance of third parties. Advertising is also understood to mean the request for services.”
Why a special code for social media?
From the SRC and DDMA press release: “It is sometimes completely unclear to consumers that companies pay for messages on social media. The Code does not prohibit this practice, but it does oblige you to communicate honestly about it, for example by adding #spon to your message”.
In my opinion, there are more things in advertising that are sometimes unclear to consumers. Is clarification of how advertising works always laid down in a code? That actually feels like you have to explain 'how things work' in a code in other sectors as well. In comparison: is clarification of how purchasers (may) do their work always laid down in a law or code? Or how exactly an HR professional recruits and selects?
Consumer protection
nrcodeThe SRC and the DDMA apparently find it necessary to protect the consumer. But just between us: can't we expect 'the consumer' to see through these tricks? Or, as Pierre Spaninks tweeted to me : "I don't think that code will work, because the essence of this type of advertising on social media is that it doesn't say that it's advertising. Which doesn't matter, because everyone knows it's advertising and no one finds that a problem."