Search results

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 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.

Examines how self‐regulation in advertising, within a framework of legislation, can help reverse the trends toward childhood obesity and excessive consumerism by protecting children from undesirable advertising practices. Outlines how this works in Europe: a code of advertising practice is created, based on the codes of the International Chamber of Commerce, and a self‐regulatory organisation (SRO) is formed to operate this, with the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) providing a single voice for self‐regulation. Describes how SROs actually enforce the codes by giving advice, handling complaints, monitoring advertising in their markets, and referring serious cases of abuse to the appropriate legal authority. Assesses how well the system is working: the number of complaints being handled is small in proportion to the total number of advertisements, and those concerning food and children form a small portion of the total number of complaints, but there is room for improvement. Shows how the 2004 EASA Self‐Regulation Charter makes specific commitments to cover any gaps in existing coverage. Concludes with five ways that marketers can help effective self‐regulation: keep to the spirit of the codes, educate your staff, use SRO advice on copy and other aspects, review complaints and monitor results, and challenge incorrect claims.

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.

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.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive record of the development of Thai advertising, which started as being heavily influenced by the West and subsequently evolved with a unique style that fits well with the global advertising trends.

The analysis was done based on literature review and content analysis of Thai advertising. In addition, ten in-depth interviews were conducted with executives of the Advertising Association of Thailand and academics.

Thai advertising progressed from being influenced by the growth of transnational advertising agencies. This resulted in strong creative foundations that blended well with the unique Thai emotional flair. In addition, consumer protection has grown in importance, leading to a strong commitment in pushing for self-regulation.

Examination of Thai advertising shows that the strength of Thai advertising lies in its human resources. This exploration of challenges and success of Thai advertising has shed light on how the advertising industry can be developed for creativity leadership in the global arena. The limitation is that the paper misses interviews with digital agencies.

This paper provides a comprehensive presentation of Thai advertising history in terms of agency development, creativity, and self-regulation.

This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the Thai advertising industry based on agency ownership and growth, creativity development leading to the unique Thai emotional advertising and self-regulation.

This chapter explores the development of advertising regulations governing food advertising to children in Australia since the 1940s. By introducing the advertising and marketing self-regulatory system, the Australian Government is taking a neoliberal approach, advocating for the free market to initiate and sustain the country’s economic development, instead of greater government regulation. By examining the primary and secondary literature, such as government reports and research, and newspaper and academic articles, this chapter outlines different regulatory initiatives adopted by both the government and food industry to limit food and beverage advertising to children on television and online, in order to prevent obesity rates increasing in children. This chapter synthesizes and critically evaluates food industry and public health studies, government and non-government reviews, and other research studies to evaluate the influence of self-regulation on Australian television food advertising within the neoliberal context since the 1990s. It contributes to the literature on food advertising regulations for children in Australia by offering evidence of how the government, public health authorities and the food industry have attempted to keep pace with changes in the advertising, marketing and media industries by developing and reviewing advertising codes. It identifies the loopholes that exist in these self-regulatory codes and concludes that Australia’s current advertising regulatory arrangements are failing to protect our children from unhealthy food marketing on television, especially on relatively under-regulated online platforms such as social media and branded websites. The issues identified in this chapter could aid the food and beverage industry, as well as the self-regulatory system, to offer comprehensive and applicable solutions to combat Australia’s obesity crises by implementing new legislations that align with different marketing practices.

This paper seeks to develop a clearer understanding of the operations and decisions made by Australian advertising standards bodies, the Advertising Standards Council and its successor, the Advertising Standards Board. It also seeks to identify whose interests have been served by these advertising standards organisations – those of the public or those of the advertising industry.

Using annual reports and reports in mainstream press outlets, this paper compares the two advertising standards bodies, their respective organisational structures, and their decisions, in order to identify the key issues that have confronted Australia's advertising regulation bodies.

In addition to demonstrating the fundamental similarities between the Advertising Standards Council and the Advertising Standards Board, this paper raises serious questions about self‐regulation and the way that it serves the advertising industry's interests ahead of the public interest.

This is the first long‐term comparative survey of the operations, activities and decisions of the Advertising Standards Council and the Advertising Standards Board that also reveals the fundamental shortcomings of the current advertising standards codes.

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.