The comments of ‘buzzers’ on the website www.buzzer.nl about Grolsch Weizen can not be considered as commercial communications in the meaning of in the Advertising Code for Alcoholic Beverages (RVA). The Dutch Advertising Code Authority (RCC) recently came to this conclusion in a case between the Dutch Foundation for Alcohol Prevention and the Dutch beer brewery Grolsch concerning a Buzzmarketing campaign. The RCC decided that the opinions of buzzers can be positive as well as negative, and that it has been sufficiently proven to be likely that the alcohol company in question could not influence these opinions. The fact that the participating buzzers were selected in advance to reduce the chance that their comments would be negative did not change this conclusion, because the actual comments on the website were sufficiently neutral. The RCC refused to comment on the concept of ‘buzzing’ in general, which makes sense because the RCC only has the authority to decide on specific commercial communications only.
The decision of the RCC is of course good news for alcohol companies, but it seems likely that STAP will not leave it at this. Apart from that fact that STAP will probably file for appeal, it is to be expected that STAP will also address members of the Dutch Parliament.
Maud van der Leeuw
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
The comments of ‘buzzers’ on the website www.buzzer.nl about Grolsch Weizen can not be considered as commercial communications in the meaning of in the Advertising Code for Alcoholic Beverages (RVA). The Dutch Advertising Code Authority (RCC) recently came to this conclusion in a case between the Dutch Foundation for Alcohol Prevention and the Dutch beer brewery Grolsch concerning a Buzzmarketing campaign. The RCC decided that the opinions of buzzers can be positive as well as negative, and that it has been sufficiently proven to be likely that the alcohol company in question could not influence these opinions. The fact that the participating buzzers were selected in advance to reduce the chance that their comments would be negative did not change this conclusion, because the actual comments on the website were sufficiently neutral. The RCC refused to comment on the concept of ‘buzzing’ in general, which makes sense because the RCC only has the authority to decide on specific commercial communications only.
The decision of the RCC is of course good news for alcohol companies, but it seems likely that STAP will not leave it at this. Apart from that fact that STAP will probably file for appeal, it is to be expected that STAP will also address members of the Dutch Parliament.
Maud van der Leeuw