An Evaluation of Spain´s Advertising Self-Regulatory SystemA Content Analysis of AACC Cases (2005 to 2009)

Mercedes Medina School of CommunicationUniversity of Navarra

Soontae AnA.Q. Miller School of Journalism and Mass CommunicationsKansas State University

I.Objetives

1. To examine recent review activities of the AACC (2005-2009)

2. To look at the historical evolution of AACC activities

3. To compare it to the activities of its U.S. counterpart, the National Advertising Division (NAD)

• Autocontrol existed since 1977.• AACC is one of the entities authorized by Red.es• It has signed self-regulatory agreements in different fields:

Television Advertising, Confianza Online and Videogame Advertising.

• AACC is a member of the European Advertising Standards Alliance.

• Purposes: • a) to ensure that advertising constitutes a particularly useful

instrument in the economic process, • b) to ensure respect for ethics in advertising and • c) to protect consumers´ rights.

• 250 members: • all the television broadcasters and other media, • more than a hundred advertisers, • thirty advertising agencies, and• main advertising associations.

II. About the AACC

EASA members

Advertising self-regulation organizations

Challenger

Jury Advertiser

Consumer associations

Competitors

The public

AACC monitoring.

Plenary Session

III. Procedure

• From January 2005 until May 2009 there were 683 filed cases: • 22 mediations, • 531 claims solved by the Jury and • 129 solved by the Plenary Session.

• We analyzed cases that were in the online monthly newsletters: 545545

• Each case was coded based on the following criteria: • 1) product category, • 2) challenger type, • 3) media type, • 4) AACC response, • 5) advertiser response, • 6) codes and laws, and • 7) basic principles.

IV. Method

V/1 Results

Table 2. Media Type

V/2 Results

Challenger AACC 2005-2009

AACC 1996-2000

NAD 1973-1981

Consumer associations

259 (47.5%)

319 (52%)

417 (22%)

Other companies/ competitors 136 (24.9%) 109 (28%) 402 (21%) Individual consumers 101 (18.5%) 29 (7.5%) Other self-regulation organizations

11 (2%) 11 (2.8%)

Public authorities/ Local BBBs*

6 (1.1%) 6 (1.8%) 324 (17%)

AACC/ NAD monitoring 22 (4.2%) 3 (0.9%) 705 (37%) Other 10 (1.8%) 14 (3.6%) 61(3%)

Table 3. Challenger Category

V/3 Results

* Better Business Bureaus

Graph 4. AACC Evaluation AACC 2005-2009

V/4 Results

Graph 5. Responses by Advertisers AACC 2005-2009

V/5 Results

Table 6. Code or law AACC 2005-2009

V/6 Results

Table 7. Basic principles

V/7 Results

• The volume of work of the AACC has increased over the years

• Product categories handled by the AACC were quite different from the NAD, pointing out several major industries of the two nations.

• The challenger category showed the biggest difference between the AACC and the NAD.

• AACC was actively handling cases on truthfulness and good taste, which is in contrast to its U.S. counterpart.

• AACC has become responsible for controlling television content.

VI. Conclusions

Number of copy advicesNumber of cases

843

7.198

Number of cases and copy advices

• A more recent case study on NAD activities will provide a clearer picture of the NAD’s performance and allow a more accurate comparison to the AACC in recent years.

• The current study prompts us to engage in more scholarly attention to the evaluation of different types of self-regulatory systems around the world.

VII. Limitations and further research

Thank you

Mercedes Medina mmedina@unav.es

Soontae Ansoontae@ksu.edu