Ad-slingers! Punting peeps' pics into promos? You must read THIS

Advertisers are responsible for any material they hoover up from social networks to use in their promotions - and that user-submitted content must comply with UK advertising rules. That's according to the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), which together with the Broadcasting Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP), is …

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like expecting Dracula to apply some TCP and a bandage to every neck he bites.

[monkeyfish]

One weird old tip

So where does the DOCTORS ARE ANGRY ABOUT THIS WEIRD OLD TIP ads stand in this, I assume you'd actually have to find an angry doctor?

[Anonymous Coward 15]

Re: One weird old tip

Doctors probably are angry about that weird old tip if it draws people into some made-up woo instead of actual medicine.

[SteveK]

Re: One weird old tip

Those ads always annoy me for some reason, so I'm sure there'd be some doctors who they make angry too, just by existing, not necessarily anything to do with the content.

[Lee D]

"On Twitter we’ve suggested that advertisers use #spon or #ad to make it obvious"

Because "#spon" is immediately obvious.

I'm *assuming* it stands for sponsored, but that that is "obvious" is far from given. #ad - I'll give you that one.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

I agree, but if it's used enough, we'll learn what it means; they could agree to use #xyzzy and we'd pick it up.

FWIW, I would be fine with them attaching the "ⓐ" symbol ("circle-A" or "enclosed A" U+24D0) to every tweet. Or, thinking about it, "ⓢ" for "sponsored" (not "spam", you understand).

[Flywheel]

I'd be more inclined

.. to use #ignore ,or, depending how outrageous the claim, #bullshit

[andy mcandy]

A better way...

I think the best way to mark sponsored/advert tweets would be to begin the tweet with the following:

"This is a sponsored tweet from *company name* about "product name*.

How many characters left for the "important message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

#spon - good, I have a float-plane.

I didn't think it was obvious the same way you think it was obvious.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Scope for fun here

Each time you upload a hi-res piccy to some social sharing site you should embed a low-res bit of extreme porn in a corner somewhere where it won't be noticed. Then when some big-name company lifts your photo and uses it in their latest ad campaign you post an anonymous tweet "hey, guess what you get if you zoom in to the bottom left of the new Tesco/Ford/Smirnoff/etc. ad".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Scope for fun here

They're certainly leaving themselves open to some fun and games. The 'advice' reads like a manual of how to land some egg on the face of your least favourite (now there's a tough shout) advertisers.

I imagine a lot will run shy of user content for exactly this reason; potentially toxic and a fine platform for your loudest detractors to piss on your carefully crafted festival of brand elevating whalesong.

[Daedalus]

Stop before it's too late

One day you guys are going to wake up and find that the bureaucrats have sat on everything that made life worthwhile. All these OfCom, OfPut and OfToss entities are just people sitting on high looking down and deciding what they will allow. Soon they will be thinking about who to harass.

Advertisers may not quote people without permission, nor use their images without permission. Anything else is outside the reach of the law, except for libel.

[Infernoz]

Unenforceable

Any retail site which allows user comments, images, or video, on a huge range of products may fall foul of this e.g. Amazon; however, it is fantasy to think that either party can monitor it all! Even comments about products on other sites, possible astroturfing, could be considered dubious advertising too!