Australian Advertising Watch Group Says Companies Are Responsible For Comments On Their Facebook Pages

from the no-they-freaking-aren't dept

Techdirt has dealt a great deal with how artists and companies should be connecting with their fans and customers and how an active community can increase the brand. We've also discussed the value of comments and commentors on websites and what they can mean for discussion and for business. But now, thanks to an Australian advertising watch group, we're presented with a question that intersects between the two: should a business community's comments be considered advertising?

The Australian details the story of how the Advertising Standards Bureau is releasing a report attacking Carlton & United Breweries over comments users posted to their Facebook pages. Like many companies, they have a presence on social media with which they engage their customers and ask deep, contemplating questions like "What's the next essential needed for a great Australia Day BBQ?" Personally, I would've answered with something involving marsupial-racing, but, in a turn of events nobody except everybody could have predicted, some user comments were what expert socialogists call "dick-ish." The ASB decided that these abhorrent comments qualified as the brewery's advertising:
"In a copy of the report obtained by Media, the ASB said comments left by people on the social network site constituted advertising, even though the company had not posted them.

The complaint to the ASB claimed that the Facebook page breached alcohol advertising guidelines by connecting alcohol with social or sexual prowess and promoted irresponsible drinking and excessive consumption."
Perhaps the folks at the ASB had had one too many Foster's, because in my dictionary the definition of advertising involves the company calling attention to a product or service in the hopes of gaining more customers. I'm not sure how user comments on a Facebook page fit that definition, but then again, I'm not insane. It'd be bad enough if this was some regular occurrence left completely unchecked by the brewery, but all along they had been checking the page twice a day to remove inappropriate comments. They were already self-policing, but the ASB still felt compelled to assign ownership of user comments to the brewery.

The concern, of course, is the way this is going to stifle brands jumping into social media. As we've discussed here many times in the past, the basic safe harbor protections from secondary liability are a large part of what makes the internet work. If the brewery is responsible for user comments to the degree that the ASB seems to be indicating, the liability and staff required to monitor comments won't be worth the exposure, and brands and fans alike will lose a valuable way to connect with one another.
""It would be unduly onerous on alcohol beverage producers and indeed any company participating in this medium to interpret the code as including user comments on Facebook pages as falling within the scope of 'advertising or marketing communications', since CUB does not have a reasonable degree of control over them," the company said."
And that results in the very antithesis of connecting with your fans/customers. Overly restrictive advertising regulations like this can only stifle business, all in the apparent attempt to pretend that some people aren't jerks. Let's hope that the ASB's report is struck down.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: advertising standards bureau, australia, connect with fans, liability, secondary liability, social networking commnets
Companies: carlton & united


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    weneedhelp (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 1:32pm

    As a self proclaimed dick

    We're here, drink beer, get used to it.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Torg (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 1:43pm

    Does the ASB have a Facebook page? I want to go connect alcohol with social or sexual prowess and promote irresponsible drinking and excessive consumption on it.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 1:56pm

    Personal Responsibility

    Is it a bloody thing of the past?

    The only person who is responsible for what they post IS THE PERSON WHO POSTED IT.

    Honestly, it's not a hard thing to understand.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:37pm

      Re: Personal Responsibility

      Why is techdirt posting stuff like this !!!

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 8 Aug 2012 @ 3:27am

      Re: Personal Responsibility

      It's just like the Colorado shootings (and mAurora later if memory serves). They'll blame video games, violent movies, Jesus. But not the shooter. Pretty reasonable.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jollygreengiant (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:00pm

    You can comment on their blog here http://blog.adstandards.com.au/

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nigel (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:02pm

    Booze causes the ASB to seemingly makes sense.

    Nigel

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:05pm

    The concern, of course, is the way this is going to stifle brands jumping into social media.

    Is that really a concern? It seems like a minor benefit to me. The concern, of course, is over the broader implications on responsibility for user-generated content.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ike, 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:22pm

    Not sure if you know this, but you can't actually get Foster's in Australia. It's an export only beer made locally. Here in Europe, it's made by Heineken.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster's_Lager

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:37pm

      Re:

      But....But....It's Australian for beer!!!

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dementia (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:38pm

      Re:

      That's funny, because I certainly remember seeing it when I was in Darwin. Admittedly, I didn't drink any, I stuck to the Victoria Bitters.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:00pm

      Re:

      Actually you can buy Fosters anywhere in Australia as long as it's not at a normal Pub.

      What I think you mean to say is that there are two versions of Foster's, one that is made overseas and one that is made locally.

      Personally (and around 85% of the beer drinking population of Aussies agree with me.. in other words all of us) the only difference between the offshore and onshore products is that the offshore one tastes a bit less like Dingo's Piss and more towards Emu piss. They are NOT an indication of good Aussie beers.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2012 @ 2:23am

        Re: Re:

        I reject the notion of 'good beer,' regardless from whence it comes.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Timothy Campbell (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:25pm

    Impractical to Monitor

    Here in the USA the fast food chain Chick-Fil-A was castigated for (apparently) creating a sock-puppet account to respond to criticisms on Facebook pages. Once the sock-puppet was discovered — her avatar was found to be a stock photo — Chick-Fil-A was blamed for the action. But that has never been proven.

    I'm no fan of that restaurant, because they're making bigotry and intolerance a selling point, but I CAN entertain the possibility that they had nothing to do with the sock-puppet.

    I am also aware that some companies will pay below-minimum-wage workers to flood comment areas with a particular message. How do you prove this has happened? It's not that hard to obscure the truth.

    I don't think the Advertising Standards Bureau has really given this matter any deep thought.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:48pm

    'but then again, I'm not insane'

    you're also not Australian. what a strange bunch they are!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:07pm

      Re:

      hat a strange bunch they are!

      We are NOT strange, Nucking Futs absolutely and never normal, but strange? nope Japan holds the title of Strangest, with the USA and France coming in a close 2nd and 3rd

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    PapaFox, 7 Aug 2012 @ 3:15pm

    Get the facts, please

    Sorry folks, no story here. Move along.

    The ASB decided that:

    (a) A company's Facebook page was advertising;
    (b) That the company was responsible for the comments posted by sock puppets - accounts managed by or on behalf of the company.

    The complaint was that Carlton & United Brewery (a SAB Miller subsidiary) was breaching the "voluntary" advertising code which required it to promote responsible use of alcohol on its' Facebook page. It also turned out that many of comments were made by the public relations/marketing groups financed by CUB.

    The ASB ruled that both Facebook pages and sock puppet comments were advertising and subject to the code.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    chaos, 7 Aug 2012 @ 3:31pm

    chaos

    If this is the case, I plan on putting as many insulting comments on the pages of companies or organizations I don't like. Then I'll call the police and ask them to be arrested. Good job dipshits.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mike42 (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 3:36pm

    Crazy people always say that

    but then again, I'm not insane.

    Are you sure about that? Are you?

    Are you?!?!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Prashanth (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 3:58pm

    The only companies responsible

    The only companies and organizations responsible for comments on websites like their Facebook pages are the ones who see so many negative reviews that they close down comments and/or astroturf the comments like crazy. You know...like the ASB.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    pyro, 7 Aug 2012 @ 5:51pm

    Just so you know....

    Just so you know, nobody drinks Fosters in Australia. It's a horrible beer that we export :P More details here: http://www.epinions.com/content_1385209988?sb=1

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:53pm

    a companies facebook page IS a form of that companies advertising, that is the page in it's entirety, or ALL OF IT, user comments and all..

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2012 @ 5:51pm

    BTW, you can't buy Fosters here in Australia (you used to be able to, but it was very unpopular).
    It's sold overseas only, as an Australia beer.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 8 Aug 2012 @ 8:06pm

    Face-whatever.

    It looks like the question in the first paragraph answered itself before it was asked: A corporate presence on a website meant to CwF can only be advertising. What the heck else is it?

    I would have to say that, now, yes, they are responsible for the comments because they are using fan-generated comments to reach other fans and promote the brand. So if they do not remove or address the comments(I prefer that they address such comments, as that would be more open and responsible, and a better demonstration of the "drink responsibly" culture they are supposedly on board with), then they should be held accountable for them.

    in my dictionary the definition of advertising involves the company calling attention to a product or service in the hopes of gaining more customers.


    That would cover all content appearing on their advertising FB page. Not very confusing at all. Internet social networking doesn't change anything here. What is so special about it? I don't care how "passively" the company is displaying consumer endorsement, it is advertising.

    Of course, I would say that they should have a reasonable amount of time to address such comments, and be given opportunity to review comments which someone (private or gov) reports as violating whatever rule or law.

    I would think that CwF by other sorts of ventures (artists and such) might apply such rules a bit differently: These are generally more personal connections and so is the fan commentary. (Well, and the rules governing advertising for controlled items are a bit different.) However, this doesn't mean various horrible comments should go unaddressed - this is bad for business anyway.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Kevin (profile), 8 Aug 2012 @ 8:29pm

    Beer for comment

    The anti everything mob are at it again.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.