Posts Tagged ‘Commerce commission’

1. Plenty for the Commerce Commission in the holiday homes market

   Published on Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
   Last week the Commerce Commission issued a “warning” to the bookshop chain, Borders, over a misleading voucher scheme which the retailer promoted before Christmas.

   This promotion offered $20 in vouchers for every $75 spent at Borders until Christmas.  In the small print, however, it was specified that the customer could redeem one $10 voucher in January and the second $10 voucher in February. The Commission received complaints from consumers saying they felt mislead, and the Commission agreed.

   After another Christmas holiday experience, perhaps the Commission could turn its attention to the rental market for holiday homes.

   Do you expect a road in front of your Northland cottage, when the promotional site declares “absolute beach front”, and it is clear that all the photos studiously avoid showing the road?  Do you expect the advertised “Sky TV” in your Napier pad to be restricted to the sports channels only? 

   And then, there is the $460-a-night Waikehe property… Do you expect access to this non drive-on property, which you’ve been told is a “short 25 metre walk” to the beach, to in fact be 151 metres from the very closest carpark on the street?!  And do you expect this same premier rental to require cleaning, and for the charcoal barbecue to have only one fixed wheel and no charcoal?  If you are interested in this property, we suggest you contact Waiheke Unlimited which promotes itself as the only personalised specialists in self-catered holiday accommodation on Waiheke.

   Yes, there is plenty that could occupy the Commerce Commission in this sector, which is crying out for an independent evaluation and assessment vehicle in order to protect our reputation as a tourism destination. When it comes to holiday home rentals, there is too frequently a gap between the blurb and the reality. And of course, prices of these homes well exceed the value of the Borders voucher.

2. New Media gets a dose of ethics from the FTC

   Published on Monday, October 12th, 2009
   It’s fair to say that traditional media has envied the huge freedoms Internet publishers enjoy. On the Internet, any man and his dog can be publishers, editors, ad sales people – at the same time, without the “Chinese Walls” traditional media like newspapers and television are required to have, to avoid accusations of bias and advertorialising.

   Without mentioning anyone in particular, there are influential bloggers and webmasters who have felt that the rules of ethics that bind traditional media do not apply to them. With their enormous reach and clout, they have tremendous power to influence if they decide to endorse products or services, and have at time run foul of the law courts too.

   The trouble is, without transparency, such endorsements could potentially mislead readers.

   There have been some moves to voluntarily introduce for instance a Blogger’s Code of Conduct, but the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has had enough and sharpened its tone against the New Endorsers. New roles have been issued and they state quite clearly that if you have material connections with anyone whose products or services you endorse, it must be disclosed.

   Bloggers paid in any form, and this includes receiving free products or services in exchange for reviews, are said to be endorsers by the FTC. From now on, they must disclose their relationships with vendors right up front. Likewise, a firm that pays bloggers or seeks to influence editorial content by supplying material or services for free must say so up front or face legal liability.

   The FTC rules tighten up what can be said in advertising and promotions featuring consumers relating experiences, stating these have to be typical of what results consumers can generally expect.

   Likewise, research cited has to disclose any sponsorship and celebrities endorsing products and services outside traditional ads (in social media campaigns for instance) have to disclose relationships with advertisers and marketers.

   While New Zealand is yet to introduce similar, stringent rules, it should be noted that the Commerce Commission works close with the FTC. New Zealand bloggers for instance who have US audiences could face investigation by the FTC if they do not follow the new rules.

   For public relations practitioners, it’s important to note that FTC could haul not just “endorsers” but also advertisers – for example, agencies initiating social media campaigns – in front of the courts for false or unsubstantiated claims, or for simply not disclosing the connections between the parties.

   Also, saying “results may vary” is no longer a safe harbour qualification for testimonials that endorse products and services. Celebrities or personalities who take part in campaigns must disclose their relationships with advertisers.

   The rules are new and untested, but ethics behind them are clear and simple and will make life easier for all involved. Full disclosure and increased transparency strengthen relationships and trust with audiences with that in mind the FTC’s new rules are most welcome.