For nearly half a century, Advertising Standards Canada has worked as the ad industry’s self-regulatory body, issuing rulings on marketing executions that result in complaints from consumers and businesses. Since 1963, ASC has administered the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards that lays out 14 clauses—for example, accuracy and clarity—by which consumer complaints are assessed. Since 1976, the organization has also ruled on disputes between companies, using the same list of clauses.
While the system has mostly worked over the years, a recent dispute between Rogers Wireless and Bell Mobility points to the ASC’s limits as a regulatory body. It may serve as an effective judge and jury, but it’s no executioner.
Of course, it wasn’t really meant to be, nor have advertisers made a habit of defiance. Most companies, even if they appeal an ASC ruling, will amend the ad in question or remove it from the media landscape. As Janet Feasby, vice-president, standards for ASC points out, widespread compliance sends the message that the industry takes its ethical responsibilities seriously, and that it’s capable of policing itself.
“For advertisers, it’s in their interest to support the program because they support self-regulation,” says Feasby. “If ASC wasn’t dealing with it, the complaints would go to the Competition Bureau or the Provincial Consumer Ministry.”
Bell, however, evidently did not see compliance as being in its best interest after an October ruling that its claim, made in several advertising executions, of operating the “fastest and largest network across North America” was inaccurate. Competitor Rogers presented evidence at a trade dispute hearing, while Bell—which is not an ASC member—declined to participate.
According to the ASC report, its review panel “understood that some, but not all, of the advertising at issue included disclaimer copy in small type that qualified the claim.” (The disclaimer is: “the 1xEVDO network is the fastest high-speed mobile network that is available across all countries within North America.”) The general impression “was the Bell wireless network was faster than its competitors in each of the countries that make up North America, including Canada.”
The panel supported Rogers’ complaint and, on Oct. 31, advised Bell that it should amend or remove the creative in question.
Bell not only disagreed with the ruling, but continued to run the ads, prompting ASC to fire the last remaining arrow in its enforcement quiver. For the first time since it began to adjudicate industry disputes, the ASC made a public announcement about Bell’s non-compliance and asked for the cooperation of media vendors in refusing to run the ads.
“We haven’t taken this step before,” says Feasby. “It’s extremely rare that an advertiser does not agree to comply with a decision.”
Bell now stands as that rare exception, but ASC doesn’t offer any further remedies beyond its attempt at public shaming.
Rogers Wireless declined to comment on the specifics of the case, but Elizabeth Hamilton, a spokesperson for the company, says the public announcement provides at least some measure of satisfaction, generating interest among bloggers and media outlets.
Bell spokesperson Jacques Bouchard, maintains the claim about network speed meets all legal requirements for advertising in Canada and will continue to be featured in upcoming campaigns. He adds no media vendors have pulled the ads or expressed any concern to Bell in the wake of the ASC announcement.
Without incurring any serious repercussions, Bell has set a precedent as the first advertiser to shrug off an ASC ruling. Whether others follow suit will be a gauge of the industry’s commitment to self-regulation.
