Ascdeck for mailing

Does anybody think we need reforms at the ASC? A presentation made by Gi Gatchalian of J. Romero to the 4As members, in the presence of ASC oďŹƒcials, at the general membership meeting held October 29, 2014.

Spot the difference

Spot the difference

“Secure your future with (insurer) today” “Fail-proof your future with (insurer)”

Spot the difference

“Secure your future with Manulife today” “Fail-proof your future with AXA”

The biggest difference Competitor AXA’s line:

“Fail-proof your future with AXA”

APPROVED! Manulife’s line:

“Secure your future with Manulife today”

DISAPPROVED!

Travails at the ASC

5 Rounds. 5 decisions.

•

SCREENER— “Secure your future…” DISAPPROVED

•

3-MAN PANEL 1. DISAPPROVED.

•

TECH COM. CANNOT APPROVE. Go to 5-man panel.

•

5-MAN PANEL DISAPPROVED. Need qualifier.

•

3-MAN PANEL 2. DISAPPROVED. Claim cannot have qualifiers.

The Manulife storyboard

Richard Yap: Sa TV, I have a script to guide me.

Offcam, I have a manual for life. MANULIFE. Sa Manulife I can give my kids the best education.. Â

The Manulife storyboard

..And take care of my wife hanggang retired oldies na kami.

Anuman ang mangyari, my family is protected and taken care of with Manulife.

The Manulife storyboard

Secure your future with Manulife, today.

Please note the cube visuals— the context of the statements— the product groups of Protection, Retirement and Education.

The Manulife storyboard

AXA TVC Survivor &30s&

GIRL:&Six&months&ago&I&got&engaged.& Four&months&ago&I&got&promoted.& &

Now&on&its&6&rounds&of&chemotherapy,&it&happened&to&me.&

Two&months&ago&I&was&diagnosed& with&Cancer.&

What&if&it&happens&to&you?&

AXA TVC

VO:$Fail$proof$your$future$with$AXA.$$

AXA$gives$you$more$coverage$than$your$regular$ health$plans.$ $

Girl:$Thanks$to$AXA$I$can$focus$ on$my$future$plans.$

AXA Billboard copy

Lead-in:

Safeguard your family

Headline: Fail-proof your future Logo:

AXA

Aside from clouds in the background, these are the only things that appear on that billboard.

Round by round.

Round 1. Screener •

“Secure your future with Manulife today” DISAPPROVED•

“too absolute”

•

Changed to “Manulife helps secure your future today”.

•

all other lines OK

•

Approved for production as revised

But we continued to believe that there’s nothing wrong with “Secure your future with Manulife today”, so we re-applied and appealed to a 3-man panel.

Round 2: 1st 3-man Panel

Argument: “Secure your future today with Manulife” is said in context of insurance ad with product groups: Education, Retirement, Protection. In context, perfectly reasonable.

In this context, no consumer will take it to mean, much less believe that if you buy insurance from any insurer, you’ll be rich for the rest of your life, or no untoward thing will ever happen to you, or that you will be assured of a place in heaven when you die.

Round 2: 1st 3-man Panel •

Still DISAPPROVED. “Too absolute”

•

2nd line: “Anuman ang mangyari,…” also DISAPPROVED

•

“no one can secure one’s future…”

•

“ad positions Manulife to be the only solution”

B1: “Secure your future…” still disapproved.

B1: And it got worse… 2nd line also disapproved B3: Dagdag ng panel…

“ad positions Manulife as the only solution…” Saan nanggaling ang “only”?

>>>>: I decided to go to a higher authority at ASC. I was advised to go to the Tech Com.

Round 3: Tech Com

Bombshell: THE ISSUE IS FAIRNESS! AXA’s “Fail Proof your future with AXA” was approved.

Why can’t “Secure your future with Manulife be approved?

That’s where we exploded the bombshell …

Round 3: Tech Com •

Tech Com: “Argument is compelling”…BUT— •

“Tech Com only rules on procedural issues. Cannot approve a storyboard.”

•

Must go to 5-man panel. (Pay P6,000.00)

•

Agency: “..there’s enough here to form a 5-man panel!”

•

•

NO GO. Tech Com members cannot be chairman of 5man panel.

Agency request: some Tech Com member sit in 5-man panel for continuity.

•

NO GO. Agency cannot request members of panel.

So, off we went, obediently applying for a hearing by a 5-man panel.

Round 4: 5-man Panel •

At the 5-man panel…

Still DISAPPROVED despite AXA revelation.

•

“…communication is ambiguous and unqualified

•

“… important that viewers are directed to a source of more information”

Round 4: 5-man Panel •

Still at the 5-man panel…

Panel member: “…don’t you have “Terms & conditions apply”?”

•

Agency: “Let’s put it in!.

•

Panel: “No revision allowed during a 5man panel.” (Why?)

•

Panel:

“Must re-apply.” (re-pay)

Our ASC saga: 5-man Panel What about the bombshell?

Anong nagyari sa bombshell?

Defused by hairsplitting.

Manulife’s line:

Competitor AXA’s line:

“Secure your future with Manulife today”

“Fail-proof your future with AXA”

DISAPPROVED!

APPROVED!

Our ASC saga: 5-man Panel •

What panel said— •

“With regard to the presentation of a similar campaign of AXA, the Panel believes that the situation may not necessarily apply as there are differences in how the two materials communicate. It may not be seen as an equal comparison, giving way to the Panel dismissing the merits of this point.”

Round 5: 2nd 3-man Panel

Presented revised storyboard, with qualifiers: “Terms & conditions apply” “Talk to a Manulife adviser today”

Following the suggestion at the 5-man panel, we put in qualifiers, and re-applied, going to a second 3-man panel.

Round 5: 2nd 3-man Panel •

3rd line questioned: “Sa Manulife, I can give my kids the best education…”

•

Agency: “We’ll put qualifier from start to finish.”

•

Panel: “Line must be “Terms & conditions in the policies apply”

•

Agency: “OK”

•

Panel deliberates. Agency steps out.

>B1…Panel posed the question: “Can I send my kids to Harvard?” This was answered: “Some Manulife clients have actual done so…” (but of course, the kids must be bright enough to be admitted!) Still, panel said the line must be qualified.

Round 5: 2nd 3-man Panel •

The decision: •

“Sa Manulife, I can give my kids the best education…” approved, with qualifier.

•

“Anuman ang mangyari, my family is protected…” approved, with qualifier.

•

“Secure your future with Manulife today” still DISAPPROVED.

•

“Secure your future…” is a claim. Rules forbid qualifiers in claims.

According to the 2nd 3-man panel: “Sa Manulife, I can give my kids the best education is NOT A CLAIM” so OK provided it has a qualifier.

“Anuman ang mangyari, my family is protected with Manulife is NOT A CLAIM” so OK provided it has a qualifier.

But “Secure your future with Manulife today” IS A CLAIM. and there is a rule in the code about claims… they cannot have qualifiers.

Round 5: 2nd 3-man Panel •

“If you had submitted the AXA line where AXA is substituted with Manulife, it would have been approved.”: •

“Fail-proof your future with Manulife” OK

•

“Secure your future with Manulife today” NOT OK.

•

If line is “Secure your future today. Manulife.” it will be approved.

•

But not “Secure your future with Manulife today”.

There were also some curious statements made by the 2nd 3-man panel regarding the line “Secure your future with Manulife today”…

Contradictions! Inexplicable decisions!

•

“Fail-proof” OK. “Secure” not OK?

•

If put periods, then OK: •

“Secure your future today. Manulife.” OK

•

“Secure your future with Manulife today.” NOT OK

Contradictions! Inexplicable decisions!

•

Storyboard approved by 1st screener REMAINS APPROVED DESPITE SUBSEQUENT DISAPPROVAL BY PANELS! •

“Anuman ang mangyari…” OK w/o qualifier

•

“…can give kids best education” OK w/o qualifier

Why???

Contradictions. Inexplicable decisions!

If panels found the line “Anuman ang mangyari…” to be false or misleading or vague or otherwise injurious to consumers without qualifiers, why allow it?

RULES OVER REASON? RULES OVER CONSUMER WELFARE?

…case of rules over reason? …worse, case of rules over consumer welfare?

What, in my opinion, has happened to the ASC •

ASC has lost sight of its reason for existence

•

Code of Ethics and Manual of Procedures as “the end-all and be-all”

•

Rules and procedures sliced, diced, used to frustrate applicant advertisers

There’s a plaque at the ASC proudly proclaiming its mission, vision and values. Does anybody read that? Or do they just pore over the Code and the Manual of procedures? These two booklets seem to have taken a life of their own, independent of the Mission

What, in my opinion, has happened to the ASC •

Tendency among ASC people to: •

“Circle the wagons” Protect each other when a decision is questioned

•

Stand by previous decisions, even in the face of contradictions

•

“The ASC, right or wrong!” or “The ASC is never wrong!”

Mission: To champion truth and fairness in advertising within the context of the local environment and within the constraints of the Laws of the Land.

Vision: To be seen as the ultimate and respected authority in the effective implementation of the policies and regulations governing advertising content.

Values: Truth, Fairness, Professionalism, Respect, Leadership and Service

To me, the most important words here are Truth, Fairness and Service. Unfortunately, on all 3 counts, the ASC seems to be failing. Perhaps not always. But too often.

Should the ASC be disbanded?

NO!

Why the ASC is needed •

First and foremost: Protect consumers from deceptive, misleading, malicious advertising.

•

When that is satisfied: •

Promote fairness among advertisers, to help provide a “level playing field”

•

Make it easy for advertisers to advertise (that’s why self-regulation!).

No one expects the ASC to be perfect.

Still, self-regulation is better than government regulation.

But for self-regulation to be viable, we must admit that errors occur.

When errors occur, correct them!

Reforms I would like to see at the ASC

Reforms I would like to see •

Re-orientation of ASC as to why it exists.

•

Protect the interests of the consumer.

•

Where the interests of the consumer are already protected, •

promote fairness among advertisers

•

make it easy for advertisers to advertise.

Reforms I would like to see •

Remember— Code of Ethics and Manual of Procedures exist to help achieve THE MISSION.

•

Rules and procedures are not “end-all and be-all”: •

Don’t hair-split rules to torture advertisers.

•

Don’t send advertisers through loop of application, re-application, re-re-application (and and paying, re-paying and re-re-paying fees)

In the interpretation of the rules and procedures, be guided by the Mission and Values.

B3: I don’t think that ASC people knowingly set out saying “who am I going to torture today?” But unknowingly, some do anyway.

Reforms I would like to see

•

Be guided by the question:

•

“Will the consumer be deceived, misled or scandalised?”

•

If the answer is NO, then it’s ok!

What’s important is what the consumer takes out of the advertising!

There’s this soundbyte popular among many people at the ASC: “The content, not the intent”. So they proceed to micro-analyse the content. I don’t believe in that sound byte. And by now you probably realize that I don’t believe in micro-analysing the content. What’s important is “What is the consumer likely to take out of the advertising?” If they are NOT going to be misled, deceived or scandalised, then the ad is OK.

Reforms I would like to see •

Remember ASC values: Truth, Fairness, Service: •

When mistakes occur, admit and correct.

•

Don’t slice and dice and hair split the rules.

•

Don’t hide behind the rules.

•

Don’t act like a jail guard, who bludgeons prisoners with rules. The prisoners are US.

When rules are sliced and diced to make it hard for advertisers, we all suffer.

Reforms I would like to see •

Stop making advertisers apply, re-apply, rere-apply (and pay, re-pay, re-re-pay) •

why can’t a case be treated as a continuing case?

•

the ASC is supposed to be a non-profit undertaking. Where does all that money go?

I was one of the first professional screeners during the very early days of the ASC. Not an officer. Just a screener. I was strict when I believed an ad may have dire consequences. I didn’t budge. I was strict when I caught agency people actually trying to cheat, and pulling a fast one, abusing the rules of procedure of the ASC. I’d go right up to the ASC board to stop a cheat. I think I made a number of enemies because of that. But I also think I made a number of friends. Because when an advertiser or agency, after having been given a disapproval by me, would come back with evidence of truthfulness or a correction of the offensive part of the ad, I would pull out the ASC form from the files, supersede the disapproval with an approval, explain the change with a hand-written note on the form, and send the advertiser or agency to merrily produce their ad. That doesn’t seem to happen anymore.

Next steps.

What we, as 4A’s acting together, can do…

•

Gather similar cases with the ASC

•

Gather more suggestions for reforms

•

Get 4A’s to champion the reforms

•

Monitor implementation of reforms.

I urge the 4A’s officers and board to open a section in the 4As website where members can submit cases of dubious decisions. Cases, of course, would need to be screened for propriety and value before being posted. And cases submitted should be signed. If you are not willing to put your name behind your complaint, don’t complain!

The same website section could accommodate suggestions for reforms, similarly vetted for propriety and value.

And the same website section could banner actions and reforms implemented by the ASC— give credit where it is due. All in the spirit of fairness, in the spirit of freedom of information, in the spirit of improving our advertising industry.

end