• by Sean Hargrave , Staff Writer, May 8, 2018

Richard Branson and (MoneySavingExpert founder) Martin Lewis have both hit the headlines recently for objecting, quite rightly, to their image being used to publicise get-rich bitcoin schemes. It just seems crazy that someone would think they could get away with putting a famous name and face to their scheme without permission-- and of course, without a fee.

However, I reckon this isn't the work of mad people, but probably those who take a realistic view. In the UK, you can pretty much say what you like in an ad. The worst that can happen is that the ASA shames you in an email and tells you not to run it again. If you want to avoid this fearful act of your brand name appearing in an email, the best trick is to eventually hold your hands up and agree to not run an ad that infringes the rules again.

Anyone in advertising will have already seen the obvious flaw here. Make a claim about your Christmas gift range and the worst that could happen is you won't be able to run the advert again once a decision is made in Easter.

I've had a peek inside how the UK regulates its advertising and I have to say I have not been impressed. I can't underscore enough that I'm not having a go at the Advertising Standards Authority here as much as I am the system it runs and the lack of powers it has. A regulator can only work within the system it has. I believe this system needs to be far faster and proactive. It also needs a downside to running a noncompliant ad. Not just all-round contentment that it will not run again.

My beef was with a video shared by Michelin tyres on its Facebook page. Remember the snow that grid locked the country early March? Well, that's when Michelin thought it would be an idea to show a video of a grinning driver, buckling up in a racing seat before speeding around country lanes in heavy snow to get to work in a super car -- and all because he had Michelin snow tyres fitted. 

I have worked in and around car marketing -- particularly videos -- and I know how much thought goes into ensuring that the brand doesn't appear to endorse driving habits that are not safe. So, the only time you will see someone speed and skid is when they're clearly on a track and off public roads. The Michelin film was very much making the point that you can drive, in my opinion, in an unsafe manner because you've got extra grip. 

That was early March. Two months and a few emails later, and we're at a stage where Michelin has agreed not to show a video of some guy speeding around in its snow tyres. This news obviously coincided with the hottest May Bank Holiday on record. Somehow I don't see Michelin being particularly bothered that a video posted a couple of months ago to promote snow tyres cannot be shown now that a heat wave is upon us. 

The video was clearly intended to encourage people to favour its snow tyres over other brands, and that window of opportunity would have only lasted a couple of days. Two months later, the moment is gone, and I suspect the video was so far down its Facebook feed that it had already disappeared from the public's view.

So my beef now is that the process takes so long. The website to report a problem is counterintuitive, and the result is you get a handful of messages over the next few weeks that your case is being looked into. Then, two months later, Michelin has agreed it was a fair cop. They have taken the video down now that the bottom has dropped right out of snow tyres and thoughts have turned to ice cream and weekends at the beach. 

There is no note on its social feed to apologise for encouraging reckless driving, and there will be no mention of its name when the ASA next announces it rulings. There is absolutely no downside whatsoever for an offending brand because it has agreed that it has acted inappropriately. 

I've complained to the ASA about this system and been reassured that it does retain the right to mention brands in its email newsletter and on its website and action can be taken if they refuse to abide by a decision. 

Here is the really simple point at the crux of the issue. Chancers are being encouraged to play the system. Campaigns generally only run for a few weeks and by the time they're done, if they have caused uproar, they only have to agree with the complainants and cease the offending message. 

I think you'll agree that this is no way to police advertising. At the very, very least, brands should be treated like newspapers. If they get something wrong, they have to publicly acknowledge it and apologise. Without even this to fall back on, the system is open to people taking campaign risks which don't need to be rectified because they campaign has already finished.