New ASA guidelines for social media use

New Zealand advertisers have averted the need for regulation of commercial messages on Facebook and Twitter.

The Advertising Standards Authority has issued guidelines short of a formal code for social media.

The move aims to make advertisers aware of potential issues regarding social media and head off complaints like those decisions against social media advertisers for VB Australia and Nike in the UK.

The Interactive Advertising Bureau, which represents online advertisers, contributed to the new guidelines effective from January 1 which will cover Facebook, Twitter and all social media.

But the clearest change of rules will be for Twitter users and advice that people who are paid to tweet should declare their affiliation.

The guidelines say that from January 1 they will have to add the hashtag #ad - making it clear the tweets are advertisements and subject to the ASA jurisdiction.

ASA chief executive Hilary Souter said everybody who received money from advertisers was not obliged to include the hashtag #ad.

"It's not black and white," she said.

There had been no complaints about undeclared advertising on social media in this country.

IAB general manager Alisa Higgins and leading social media consultant Michael Carney said they could not estimate the amount paid for tweeting but that it was widespread in New Zealand.

The chief executive of the Association of New Zealand advertisers, Lindsay Mouat, said the guidelines made it clearer for advertisers paying someone to endorse brands. "That is something that has tripped up some advertisers internationally."

Facebook charges $7 for personal promoted posts - what do you think?

Facebook announced on Wednesday U.S. users will now be able to promote their personal posts to friends for a fee, but the news is being met with mixed reactions.

Although testing first started in New Zealand in May and has since rolled out to more than 20 countries, those in the U.S. can now pay to make sure your network never misses a big update in your life, from a baby announcement to an event you’re organizing. But each promoted post will cost you $7.

Take part in the poll below to tell me what you think of it...

Aussie Court Rules that Facebook is Advertising

But are you really?

The world of social media is an ever evolving one and as brands work out how to best use new technologies to create word of mouth around their products, the goal posts are endlessly being moved. Never more so than in Australia, where this week a landmark court case has made companies sit up and take notice of what is being said on their Facebook pages in ways that they never have before.

The Australian Advertising Standards Board this week ruled that Facebook is an advertising medium, and as such, that company pages must comply with pertinent codes and laws. So far so good. However, one ramification of this ruling is that a company would not only be responsible for their own page posts, but also for any public posts that appear within their page environment. What this means is that any consumer posting sexist, racist or factually inaccurate information on branded Facebook pages are no longer a nuisance, they are a legal risk.

Brands have long argued that Facebook isn't an advertising medium, but rather a networking tool that facilitates interaction between the customer (or consumer) and the brand. However, the Australian Courts disagree and so now brands will have to ensure that the only content that appears on their page is content that they would be happy to distribute on other advertising platforms. A quick look through much of the user generated commentary on branded pages and it will become clear how far this is from the current position.

So what will this mean for brands? Well, brands will have to resource their pages accordingly to ensure that every incoming piece of user information that makes it onto the page is read and verified for legal compliance. They will have to react quickly to anything that is inaccurate or that falls foul of advertising standards. Whether this means deleting or simply putting the record straight is yet to be seen. And how quickly the law will expect this retraction to occur is up for debate.

The question is whether or not brands will bother to do this. I think there's general acceptance that using social media to produce positive digital word of mouth is beneficial to a brand. However, if this positive word of mouth now has the potential to put the brand at risk of legal issues, some may consider it too risky or high maintenance and revert to more traditional media through which to generate social buzz. Alternatively, we may simply see a move to restrict the consumer voice through these social channels, which would negate the whole concept of social marketing.

What is for sure is that brands can no longer afford to take a hands-off approach to what consumers are saying on their pages. If you build it, they will talk. And not listening to that talk is no longer an option.

It's important to note that this ruling has been made in Australia and does not apply to New Zealand... yet.