Stephen Withers
Wednesday, 18 March 2009 11:33
Opinion and Analysis
Page 2 of 3
And the carriers - who actually collect the money from their customers and take a cut from the content suppliers - have tried to disclaim any involvement or responsibility.
So it's good to see that the code now requires "clear, prominent and legible information in plain language" setting out the cost including sign-up charges, the charge per message, and any periodical charges.
The "clear, prominent and legible" requirement also applies to disclosure that the service being advertised is a subscription service.
The trouble is that "legible" is defined as at least 6 point type for printed materials, when the requirement should have been to use text that's the same size as that used for the body of the ad. There's a reason why "fine print" has a negative connotation.
And how's this for meaningless? "[I]f the advertisement is online, [the mandated information must appear] above the fold". It's so vague, it's laughable! On a web page, the position of the "fold" depends on the size of the user's screen and the size of the window.
Wouldn't it have been more effective to specify that online ads could not be more than a certain number of pixels deep? As it is, an advertiser could put its metaphorical hand on its corporate heart and swear that the fine print was above the fold on its video wall, even if any normal reader would have to scroll down several windowsful.
Communications Alliance did a better with the rules about showing prices, which must be "prominent and highly visible" in ads. That's defined to be at least 50 percent of the size of the service's short code on TV and online, at least 25 percent in print (at least 6 point, but with no requirement to exceed 12 point).
Not bad, but what was wrong with making the price at least as prominent as the short code?
Providers will also be required to remind people that they have subscribed - see
page 3.
