I've written before on the clumsiness and general lack of bite of the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) and this week sees them back in action, in hot pursuit of Spotify.
It seems the music streaming site recently threw out an email to selected users, reading: "Have you heard this song by Lily Allen? Give it a try. F**k You". But without the asterisks. Enter the ASA and their searing ruling that the ad was likely to cause offence. It's the explanation from Spotify which is particularly interesting though. They say their emails, which recommend specific songs on the service, are generated by an algorithm based on members' listening habits. 'F**k You' is the title of a song by Ms. Allen and so the computer said yes to the profane message.
Essentially, because the recipients were deemed to be interested in Lily Allen tracks, they were shortlisted for the email ads. Spotify's people also stated the promotion was ‘very unlikely’ to have been sent to any user offended by the use of industrial language.
It's hard to work out whose argument is the most futile. The ASA is very good at taking the moral high ground and condemning a range of risqué advertising content, but quite poor at establishing strategies for doing anything about it. It's increasingly obvious its remit and activity is stuck in an age of print and broadcast. Much like the government, when faced with the intricacies of the digital world, they unfailingly flounder - issuing stern statements based on the flimsiest of notions and with no real idea how to tackle the issues with which they are so concerned. This is what the Authority said: “We considered recipients of emails from a general online music service would not expect them to include swearing.”
Well yes, that's what we'd expect them to say. But this covers no ground in the regulation of ads generated, not by creative human beings, but by strings of code. I imagine Spotify's marketing people have taken their admonishment with nothing more than a nod and a grin. After all, the email is already with its intended audience.
Indeed, their lack of contrition is clear from their response, which essentially amounts to 'We don't think anyone was that bothered, but we don't really know and anyway we're very busy so, y'know, whatevs.'
The idea that someone who listens to Lily Allen on Spotify can be said to be unoffended by rude words is a massive assumption and part of an excuse holds no water. At a guess, I'd say Spotify spent about 73 seconds planning this reaction, in the certain knowledge that the ASA would impose no sanctions and the email would have no consequences.
Once again, we find a new media company breaching advertising guidelines, receiving the wagging finger of the ASA and carrying on. This situation has now become a ridiculously limp and empty exercise. Either the ASA develops an approach sophisticated enough to reign in the perceived excesses of digital advertisers, or they accept the online arena is unreachable and withdraws from the battle.
Otherwise, advertisers will continue to address their rulings with words best suited to Lily Allen song titles.
Magnus Shaw is a blogger, copywriter and consultant
