Advertising
The Swedish way
Philip Kleinman
An advertisement for an antv-perspirant showed two girls, one with a large sweat stain visible around her armpit, the other with no stain at all. The ad ascribed the difference between them to the use and non-use respectively of the product. The Consumer Ombudsman ordered the advertiser either to prove that the brand was totally effective in preventing perspiration or, failing that, to modify the ad so as to show a small stain around the armpit of the girl who Was previously spotless. The story illustrates the scope of Sweden's 1971 Marketing Practices Act. It is indicative of the quickening of interest among admen in this country in the whole subject of consumer protection and the regulation of advertising that the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising should just recently have chosen to publish a small booklet explaining the Swedish system and its effect on the working of ad agencies. The booklet (50p from the IPA for those who are interested) is by Lars Bohlin, managing director of a Stockholm ad agency and, therefore, an interested party. The basic aim of the system as far as advertising is concerned is to rule out any attempt whatever to mislead, and it is administered by an Ombudsman with statutory powers and by a Marketing Court where disputes are argued out. As an adman, Bohlin complains that the restrictions "tend excessively to inhibit the creative process" but he makes the interesting point that, until clear precedents have been laid down for the interpretation of the general rules in any particular field, advertisers and their agencies tend to be over-cautious and, to adopt "a more restricted approach than is actually called for by law." However, since the Act came into force a body of case law has begun to be built up, and certain questions are not in doubt. For instance, it is illegal to print the categorical but unverifiable statements which are common in advertising in other countries. You may not in Sweden tell the public that a product "stops bad breath", only that it "helps t° prevent bad breath." Again if You tried to claim that your product "gives young skin a future," "keeps you dry and clean the whole daY through" or was "the world's finest blade", you'd be in trouble.
Claims of this kind are, of course, still allowed under British advertising's self-regulatory systern and are examples of what many admen persist in regarding as "creativity" (a good word for the ego, that) rather than as the meaninglessgook the they actually ot ur adielyceaprteive gobbledy Swedish ad agencies have been hurt by the new law in one waY which might not be immediately apparent to the outsider. They have had to educate their own staff in legal matters, and such training has been expensive and time-consunling. They have also, in their attempts to make sure that they stay on the right side of the Act. had to make more use of professional legal advisers, which is als° costly. Many clients, says Bohan, have been disinclined to fork out a lot of money to cover all this legal activity despite agencies' attempts to get them to pay for it as a specialised service.
Despite such problems, the booklet does concede that the situation "is not even half as difficult as was generally being prophesied before the new legisls"
tiao ca "as much mumche aisnt7o5-f800rcpee.; agency's creative outpuIctnednoptrea°scftni:; represent a legal problem at au• This is simply because reasonablY honest and down-to-earth advertising for honest and worthwhile products is not very likely tt) infringe the law." The Swedish legislators may we,l,! regard such a statement as ainl) justification of their actions. In tins country it may help to calm the nerves of those many people in the, ad industry who have recently RD: very agitated at the thought that, they might have a statutory contro system thrust upon them.
Previous page
