 |
| Enrico Testa, chairman of the Nuclear Forum Italian |
In the end, it also decreed the competent authority.
For months the world of the Internet had lashed out at the spot Forum sponsored by the Italian Nuclear , with detailed analysis on the form and content of the spot - even on this blog - more or less hit and parodies of mold expressly antinuclear, accused of conducting a real campaign for energy Nuclear and construction of nuclear power stations on Italian soil.
It was the same IAP dell'Autodisciplina Advertising Institute, to raise the issue through its Audit Committee, and on February 18, 2011 the jury ruled the irregularity of the spot. In particular, the ruling says
The Jury examined the documents and hearing the parties, states that the challenged advertising is inconsistent with Article. 2 of the Code of Conduct of Business Communication, read and applied in the light of the "preliminary and general rules" and supplemented by the provisions of art. 46, and ordering its termination in accordance with the reasons given.
Although the specific reasons for the sentence must still be filed, an analysis of articles called into question it is possible to speculate based on the causes that led to the IAP to censor the ad.
Article 2 of the Code of Conduct of Business Communication says
2 - Misleading marketing
Communication Business communication must avoid any statement or representation which is likely to mislead consumers, even by omission, ambiguity or exaggeration not obviously hyperbole, especially with regard to the characteristics and effects of the product, price, gratuity, the conditions sale, distribution, the identity of the persons represented, prizes or awards.
In assessing the misleading nature of commercial communication is taken as a benchmark the average consumer of the reference group.
Article 46 reads instead:
Article 46 - Appeals to the public
is subject to the provisions of this Code any message aimed at raising the public on topics of social interest, including specific, or solicits, directly or indirectly, the voluntary contribution of contributions of any kind, aimed at achieving social objectives.
These messages must contain the identity of the author and recipient of the request and the social objective to be achieved.
The promoters of these messages can freely express their views on the subject matter, but it must be clear that these are views of the same promoters and not facts. However
posts must not:
1. exploits the human misery harming the dignity of the person, or use shocking reminders such as to generate unjustified alarmism, feelings of fear or serious disturbance;
2. blame or set against liability to those who do not intend to support the appeal;
3. present in an exaggerated the degree or nature of the social problem for which the appeal is addressed;
4. specific or overestimate the potential value of the initiative;
5. encourage children to offers of money.
These provisions also apply to commercial communications that contain references to social causes.
The spot, this is the message that travels from the evaluation of the jury, is misleading.
And it is misleading, given the articles cited, because mislead the listener, we can assume omissions, ambiguities and exaggeration in the presentation of the positions in the field. In particular, analysis of the advertisement on the network, the points seem to be indicted:
- These messages must contain the identity of the author and recipient of the request and the social objective to be achieved.
- The promoters of these messages can freely express their views on the subject matter, but it must be clear that these are views of the same promoters and not facts. If
emerge from commercials such as the Nuclear Forum Italian as author and receiver, the knowledge of the sponsors of the forum itself will radically change the perception. In addition, many of the phrases that accompany the moves, which represent the positions of the contenders are proposed to appear as a question and answer dialogue rather than mere opinions in comparison, raising the false impression that the answer to the doubts of the skeptic nuclearists . The Italian Nuclear Forum commented on the news:
Forum Nuclear Italian, reserving any further assessment, informs that its TV commercial was judged by the Jury dell'Autodisciplina Advertising correct but not in accordance with Art. 2 in that the message "Does not communicate to the viewer's social objectives that the association advertiser wants to achieve." The Forum reiterates that the purpose of the communication campaign, including the commercial part, is to help revitalize the nuclear debate in Italy after decades of silence and provide arguments that can help everyone to gain a more conscious, and it "pro" or "against" on this important issue. To this basic idea has been used as a chess game: a simple and understandable by all to represent two different visions clash, a pro-nuclear and the other against it. Every pawn move on the chessboard is a thought on nuclear power. Bianchi and blacks, for and against are faced with legitimate questions. In the end it turns out that the player is playing a match against himself and his doubts. The main concept was therefore to draw attention to the fact that the only way to dispel the doubts is to form an opinion based on solid foundations and informed. The Forum notes that, while respecting the decision of the Jury, the Jury d'Ethique publicitaire Brussels had instead considered the correct spot released by the Belgian Nuclear Forum, which is exactly similar to that passed in Italy, with the same structure even though through different creative idea. Even the Belgian spot was divided by the exposure of doubtful reasons for and against nuclear energy and referred to its website the final screen.
Forum Nuclear Italian, in fact, begs the question: is not the idea of \u200b\u200bplaying chess, or The message described in words, to be partial.
are the ways in which that message is presented to arouse in the viewer the idea that nuclear power is a positive solution in a predetermined spot declared to launch a debate on atomic energy to propagate without groped for one of the parties.
The description of the spot in the statement of the Forum is not aderebte final effect of the advertisement: as the network had already been gutted, and as the jury has established the sequence of scenes, graphics and text of the advertisement broadcast to the viewer a different message from what the Forum has reiterated that in his statement.
Forum Nuclear And indeed, the really throws the mask in a later statement:
A new version of the spot of the Nuclear Forum, which takes account of the findings made by the Committee dell'Autodisciplina Advertising will be placed on the website tomorrow www.forumnucleare. com. Following delivery of the Institute, the Forum has decided to change the movie by inserting a clear reference to its position calling for the same pro-nuclear opinion in advance dell'Autodisciplina Advertising Institute.
Since Jury did not dispute the content and substance of our communication - as is our detractors have tried to persuade instrumentally - the spot has remained the same as that provided in this version but it contains the statement "We support," on plus a question asked the audience: "And you?". We stress that the lack of reference to pro nuclear position of the Forum had not been included in the previous version because it was our intention to be balanced, giving equal status to the two positions: for and against.
The idea to change the ad to try to respond to what is raised by the jury within the perspective of transparency and clarity that distinguish the mode of operation of the Forum and the objective to revive nuclear debate in Italy after decades of silence and provide arguments that can help everyone to gain a more conscious, it is 'pro' or 'against' on this subject.
In his own words, the Forum expresses filonucleare Nuclear Italian, and admits that the ad reflected the actual position of the forum, giving truth to the rumors that the advertisement a deception to the viewers, to which the position was nuclearists shown instinctively good and reasonable in a seemingly neutral and impartial .
Justice was made.
0 comments:
Post a Comment