Search results

This paper seeks to propose a framework for systematically investigating international advertising regulation; to provide an in‐depth understanding of the Chinese advertising regulation system; and to use China as a case study to examine how various global and local forces interact and negotiate the landscape of international advertising regulation.

The paper employs historical analysis; and textual analysis to achieve its purpose.

Chinese advertising regulation relies largely on government regulation, and self‐regulation plays a much subdued and marginal role. The Chinese regulator aims to control the negative effects of advertising through rigorous regulation as well as certification and censorship programs, but its various advertising laws and regulations are invariably phrased in vague and general terms, so that enforcement and compliance become a major issue. The lack of autonomous trade and consumer organizations combined with minimal public participation in the system further reduces its transparency and effectiveness.

The paper offers a detailed road‐map for advertising professionals to navigate the complex Chinese advertising regulation system.

The paper is the first English article to provide a systematic examination of Chinese advertising regulation.

Although there is considerable scholarly research on advertising self‐regulation in the USA, there is no research at all on the unique problems that comparative advertising created for those involved in the industry's self‐regulation. This study aims to address this gap in the literature with an historical analysis of the industry's efforts to respond to the widespread adoption of comparative advertising during the twentieth century.

The study's primary and secondary sources consist of nearly 640 articles collected from historical and contemporary trade journals. The analysis focuses on two research questions: When did calls for the reform and regulation of comparative advertising appear, why did they appear, and who did advertisers believe should be responsible? and Why did advertisers and industry observers believe comparative advertising should be regulated, and what were the consequences of their self‐regulation efforts and initiatives?

The paper finds that industry calls for comparative advertising reform began to appear during the Depression and peaked during the most contentious period of self‐regulation, the 1970s. The findings show that during the 1930s, members of the industry mostly abandoned their efforts to manage what they considered unfair business practices, including explicit comparative advertising, by shaping government policy. The findings also reveal that the issues of disparagement of competitors and the misappropriation of their brand names and trademarks set the stage for an extraordinary conflict between the industry, its self‐regulators, and the Federal Trade Commission.

The findings offer some new and interesting insights into the consequences that can occur when advertisers choose to employ explicit comparative advertising, or what has been called “the hardest sell of all”; the history of advertising self‐regulation in the USA; and the complex relationships among consumerism, political and economic ideology, and industry self‐regulation.

The 2016 presidential campaign in the United States was marked by widespread interference by Russian agents. The interference was especially prominent in digital media. This indicates the possible need for better regulation. To investigate the problem, I examined the legal and regulatory history of US Federal campaign regulation. While these regulations require various disclosures and disclaimers, and set some spending limits, they do not cover advertising messages. More to the point, the disclosure and disclaimer requirements for digital ads are limited and easily circumvented. Possibly because of this, political advertising in digital media has increased dramatically in recent years. I examine current proposals for improved regulation and make recommendations for changes in Federal regulation and in oversight by nonpartisan groups.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate consumer attitudes toward advertising regulation in local contexts.

A survey was carried out of 211 Chinese consumers and 205 US consumers.

It was found that the two samples converge in their views on free commercial speech, self‐regulation, and regulation by market forces. Yet, the Chinese are more likely than their US counterparts to support government regulation, endorse legal ban on strong sexual and indecent content, and favor rigorous advertising regulation. The females of both countries are more enthusiastic than their male counterparts about regulating strong sexual images in advertising and requiring advertising to promote positive values. Both countries witness considerable generational gaps, as the older respondents are more conservative in their views and more likely to support rigorous regulation of advertising.

The paper is the first to systematically survey consumers' attitudes toward advertising regulation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the regulation of advertising by considering market‐driven firms (those seeking to keep within the boundaries set by social and industry norms) and market drivers (those seeking to stretch boundaries to gain a competitive advantage). Thought is also given to the costs of regulation and tolerance to the social purse, and the benefits gained by compliance and violation.

The authors develop a conceptual argument for boundary stretching where market drivers are present in a marketplace dominated by market‐driven firms. The authors then apply a game theory model to examine the conditions, the firm responses, and Government responses. In doing so the authors investigate incentives for non‐compliant behavior in a self‐regulated market and show that a firm can achieve a market advantage by stretching advertising boundaries.

Results suggest that when government takes a “wait‐and‐see” approach of partial tolerance, then the market driver can become the focal point for the market‐driven, and a shift will take place in the regulatory boundary. If the government is the boundary shifter then social engineers are taking advantage of artificial boundaries they know will not be enforced, with implications for campaigns such as drink‐driving, smoking, and domestic violence. Also, the market driver will gain a competitive advantage by entering a market‐driven marketplace through boundary shifts, even after incurring an initial penalty.

The research demonstrates a need for research into marketing regulation to consider firm types, violation types, and tolerance levels. The study contributes to our understanding of marketer activity with two implications; first the firm is shifting the boundaries and redefining the market focal point as themselves, rather than violating the boundaries and setting themselves outside the rules. Second, depending on the level of tolerance that government has with the regulation of advertising, there is a cost to both the social purse and to market‐driven firms associated with boundary shifters.

A market driver, looking for growth opportunities, should try to enter markets dominated by market‐driven firms, and which have self‐regulation, while market driven firms should either look for regulatory protection or act collectively to wield power over third parties – for example forcing media outlets not to carry market driver advertising.

By introducing the concept of boundary stretching and allowing for market drivers and market driven firms, the authors show the effects of regulation (or tolerance) in a realistic setting and allow for the real‐world dynamics of a marketplace where new ideas create new focal points for social acceptance. This study also provides a clear illustration of the usefulness of game theory in marketing studies.

The purpose of this article is to examine the US history of advertising regulation, both formal and informal and public and private – particularly focused on advertising that is likely to mislead consumers about attributes, characteristics or performance of advertised products.

This research examines both primary sources such as legal challenges and contemporary writings as well as secondary sources.

Although early court decisions were reluctant to find advertising to be dishonest, the Post Office was the first government agency to challenge blatantly false advertisements through criminal prosecution. At the end of the 1800s, the nascent advertising industry developed an interest in regulating truthfulness to enhance advertising credibility. It proposed a model state criminal code and advertising clubs, followed by local Better Business Bureaus, began to informally resolve advertising dispute. In 1914, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was established with authority to prevent unfair methods of competition which it used to challenge advertising that was likely to injure competitors. This authority was later expanded to cover advertising that was likely to mislead consumers regardless of competitive injury. The FTC experimented with trade association advertising provisions and expanding its concepts and tools overtime until a period of retrenchment in the 1980s that set the foundations of modern advertising regulation.

This is the first treatment of advertising regulatory history that simultaneously covers and compares various sources of advertising regulation to develop a comprehensive exposition of advertising regulation history.

This paper aims to outline the historic development of advertising regulation that governs food advertising to children in Australia. Through reviewing primary and secondary literature, such as government reports and research, this paper examines the influence of various regulatory policies that limit children’s exposure to food and beverage marketing on practices across television (TV), branded websites and Facebook pages.

This paper reviews studies performed by the food industry and public health researchers and reviews of the evidence by government and non-government agencies from the early 19th century until the present day. Also included are several other research studies that evaluate the effects of self-regulation on Australian TV food advertising.

The government, public health and the food industry have attempted to respond to the rapid changes within the advertising, marketing and media industries by developing and reviewing advertising codes. However, self-regulation is failing to protect Australian children from exposure to unhealthy food advertising.

The findings could aid the food and beverage industry, and the self-regulatory system, to promote comprehensive and achievable solutions to the growing obesity rates in Australia by introducing new standards that keep pace with expanded forms of marketing communication.

This study adds to the research on the history of regulation of food advertising to children in Australia by offering insights into the government, public health and food industry’s attempts to respond to the rapid changes within the advertising, marketing and media industries by developing and reviewing advertising codes.

Until the late 19th century, the controls on advertising in Britain and the US depended on complying with laws relating to defamation and on the ethical values of advertisers and media proprietors. During the 20th century, concerns about public safety from dangerous products or services, recognition of the need to safeguard people from misleading or untrue claims, and attempts to strike a balance in the interests of fair trading have led to movements for both self‐regulation, as well as some legal restrictions on marketing and advertising practices. Differences in British and American practices have arisen from the nature of the legal systems and the cultural mores of the respective societies.

Report on the findings of two studies—one German/Swiss, the other US‐conducted among advertising/marketing leaders into the prominent role of consumer activist groups. Presents views on these groups and the future direction of their regulatory efforts. Reveals that these organizations are playing an ever‐increasing role in the move towards stranger advertising regulation, noting the impact which they have achieved. Concludes that European and US business people see consumer organizations as not being representative of consumers in general and also as being anti‐advertising.

Many nations have restrictions on advertising in certain product categories. This paper examines product category restrictions on advertising in four large East Asian markets: Japan, Taiwan, the People’s Republic of China, and South Korea. Product categories included in this study include alcohol, cigarettes, ethical drugs, contraceptives, personal hygiene products and undergarments. The authors describe regulatory policy in these categories and use Albaum et al.’s framework for assessing environmental factors in advertising to assess the logic behind the regulation. A wide range of regulations is found across the four countries and it is concluded that a complex web of factors underlies the regulations. Implications for managers are provided.