Nokia Lumia 800 ads Violated UK Sponsorship Regulations
Honestly I read the source article five times but I couldn’t understand what the actual violation of rules was; but regardless a series of Nokia Lumia promoting ads that ran on Channel 5 last October were recently ruled as being in violation of UK television sponsorship rules; as far as I understood the violation was possibly related to the fact that the advertisement ran during program content warnings?? (I could be way off). As of now, neither Nokia nor Channel 5 are being fined for the violation and since the ads have already been discontinued nothing serious will result from this.
Source: http://moconews.net/article/419-nokia-lumias-tv-deal-broke-uk-advertising-rules/ (maybe someone else can make a bit more sense of this).
Thanks to Kaizer Allen for the tip.
About the Author (Author Profile)
Heyyo, names Ali- Currently a third year Dental Student from Chicago; studying in Jordan. I love all sorts of gadgets (Have = Green Nokia N8, Cyan Lumia 800, Black N9; Want: White 808 & Stromtrooper Lumia 900- yes I'm greedy) oh and cookies.. don't forget the cookies. Follow my twitter handle '@AliQudsi' - no pressure. Thanks.Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (8)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Nokia Lumia 800 adverts violated UK regulations | UK Mobile Review | January 23, 2012
Probably means that Channel 5 needs to say that this show is sponsored by Nokia. It didn’t, so it violated the rule.
I think the meant that the sponsorship mention is not very visible, as it’s written in white over a bright grey background. The regulation usually say that the ad has to be clear about the fact that it’s a sponsor and not an usual commercial ad. I think that’s what is about. Sure for us, it’s pretty clear, but on TV sets with high contrast, the sponsorship mention may no be that readable.
I m guessing the UK is afraid of subliminal messages being tucked away into ads?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HCdRk0o5yk&w=420&h=315
It was not the 20 second idents that breached the rules, but the far shorter “flashes” which appeared before and/or after the advertising breaks. Knowing that, it starts to make *slightly* more sense.
Full details on page 26 of this:http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb1971/obb198.pdf
it didnt say or show “this program was sponsored by Nokia” or “brought to you by Nokia” etc
I think Channel 5 should change the name to Channel 7 showing WP 7 adverts LOL
That might be a voilation
The UK ASA are complete idiots. Does this really matter? Yet they still continue to allow cosmetics companies to advertise mascara with models sporting ludicrous CGI or glue-on eyelashes half an inch long.