“It sounds like the North Korean version of Social Media.”
-Fanta
“Quite possibly the stupidest decision ever made?”
-Simon
These two comments were in response to Mumbrella’s 6 August article ASB rules brands are responsible for all fan comments on Facebook.
To summarise the article, the Advertising Standards Bureau has ruled that, in response to complaints about obscene user content which promoted excessive drinking and “connected alcohol consumption with sexual or social prowess,” on the Smirnoff Facebook Page:
1. Official Facebook brand Timelines are a form of advertising; and that
2. Brands will be held responsible for all Timeline content, whether posted by the brand or by users.
This ruling obviously has important implications for all marketers operating in the social media space. Brand managers, agency account managers and community managers all need to be across this development, just as they are required to be across every other aspect of ASB strictures relating to their brand. However, the hyperbolic response to this story has raised many additional implications which require measured consideration.
Possible Implications of the ASB’s Recent Facebook Ruling
Brands Must Completely Overhaul Their Approach to User-Generated Content (UGC)
The recent ASB ruling that ad standards apply to Facebook UGC is in line with the 2011 ACCC ruling which found Allergy Pathways to be responsible for deceptively laudatory user-generated product endorsements which it failed to remove from its Facebook Page.
What the ACCC decision means: If a user makes product claims on your Facebook Page which you could not make yourself in say, a TVC, failure to remove these comments from your brand property is tantamount to validating these claims.
This decision against a little known company may not have attracted Smirnoff-level media attention, but it did spark a similar round of hand-wringing about the demise and dangers of Facebook advertising. However, brands can easily prevent running afoul of this ruling with the application of common sense and vigilant community management. If a user makes the false claim that your snack product cures asthma on your public, branded property – remove it. And follow-up with an explanation to other Fans of why that user’s comment was removed and the lack of evidence surrounding their claim. This will not only ensure you do not break the law, but also that your asthmatic Fans do not have their hopes of a cure dashed by an errant nutter.
If you like, you can also add a disclaimer to the ‘Info’ section of your brand’s Timeline to further discourage such claims, however as most community managers know, the occurrence of misleadingly positive Fan product claims is in fact extremely rare, and it would be a shame for brands to live in fear of this unlikely occurrence marring their social media activity.
What the ASB ruling means: Just as brands cannot allow users to make misleading claims on their social media properties, nor can they allow users to breach other advertising codes such as promoting excessive drinking or plain old obscenity. Again, common sense dictates that any branded communication platform where users can submit content should be constantly monitored and UCG which is offensive or advocates dangerous product usage should be removed.
All Brands Must Now Use The Pre-Moderation Facebook Timeline Option
“The recently updated Facebook Timeline for brands gives page administrators the ability to pre-moderate comments, to restrict access to underage Facebook users, to restrict the kinds of posts users can share (photos or videos by users can be blocked) as well as setting “Page Visibility” so that administrators are required to approve all posts that appear on a brand’s timeline.
“However, pre-moderation would represent a significant increase in the workload for Page administrators and could have a serious impact on a brand’s ability to have the sort of real-time conversations with fans that have come to typify social media engagement.”
The one major grey area of the ASB’s ruling is whether brands are immediately in breach once offending UGC is posted, or whether they have a reasonable amount of time in which to monitor and remove such content. It is unclear whether the content in question had been left on the Smirnoff Facebook Timeline for an extended period, whether content of this nature was a regular occurrence, and whether either of these factors were taken into account. It should be noted at this point that although the ASB determined that Smirnoff Facebook Timeline and all associated UGC were the parent company Diageo’s responsibility, the complaints relating to that content were not upheld. However,
“According to the Australian, a forthcoming ruling by the ASB against Carlton and United Breweries beer brand VB will find the brand responsible for alleged racist, sexist and anti-gay comment on its Facebook page.”
Until the ASB sheds light on the responsibilities of brands relating to the timeliness of UGC removal, the safest course of action for brands would be to enable Facebook’s pre-moderation filter. However, I suggest that the benefits of adhering to the strictest reading of this recent ruling be weighed against the aforementioned requirement for additional community management, the negative impact of a reduced ability to engage with Fans in real time, and the Fan-base of the brand in question.
For example, I’ll go out on a limb and hazard a guess that the VB Facebook Page is populated by a young, male demographic with a greater-than-average propensity to, and an apparently proven track record of, posting content which breaches ad standards, Facebook Terms of Service, and alcohol advertising regulations. Compare this to the Facebook Page of a supermarket FMCG brand, populated by an older primary grocery buying demographic, which does not have a history of contentious UCG. The price of additional community management time and reduced Fan engagement may not be considered a fair price to pay to avoid a very slim potential risk for the FMCG brand.
Brands also have a middle ground option before they surrender to Facebook pre-moderation: all Facebook Timelines offer a profanity keyword blocklist which sets aside content containing offending (admin-curated) keywords. This is far from foolproof however, as it will not pick up offensive images, and will also not be able to filter all text comments either. To take two VB Fan-submitted examples given in this Mumbrella article, a profanity filter would easily pick up ‘gay as fuckin aids’ but likely not ‘women should be chained to da kitchen’ due to the lack of obscene keywords despite the rather offensive sentiment.
Brands Must Now Remove All Racist, Sexist & Anti-Gay UGC From Their Timelines
“According to the Australian, a forthcoming ruling by the ASB against Carlton and United Breweries beer brand VB will find the brand responsible for alleged racist, sexist and anti-gay comment on its Facebook page.”
For the record, racist, sexist and anti-gay content was never an excellent look for branded presences, online or off. And in any case, Facebook expressly forbids hate speech on its platform in its Terms of Service:
“You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”
Social Media Marketing Is Dead (Again)
Despite this being a well-loved and over-used headline, 4 million brand Timelines continue to operate on Facebook. To the best of my knowledge exactly 0 brand Timelines have been removed from the social network in the wake of the recent ASB finding, Smirnoff Australia & VB included.
Australia To Adopt North Korean Social Media Policy
Kim Jong Jules has yet to confirm or deny any change to Australian media law – her announcement is believed to be awaiting moderation.
