Nokia and UK TV station Channel 5 have been found in breach of Rule 9.19 of the Office of Communication’s Code which states: â€œSponsorship must be clearly identified by means of sponsorship credits.â€
These must make clear:
a) the identity of the sponsor by reference to its name or trade mark; and
b) the association between the sponsor and the sponsored content.
The problem were the very brief, almost subliminal flash ads, which did not make it clear Channel 5 was being sponsored by Nokia, unlike the longer â€œidentâ€ which does say Channel Sponsor Nokia Lumia. Channel 5 argued the two would normally be seen together, making excessing wording on the half second flash ads unnecessary, but Ofcom did not buy that rational.
The UK regulator did not specify what punishment would be metred out, but in all likelihood it will be no more than a public apology, and Nokia gets some free extra publicity out of their advertising budget.
Now when is Ofcom going to tackle Stephen Elop about that â€œFirst real Windows Phoneâ€ claim he constantly makesâ€¦
See the judgement on page 26 of this PDF here.
Thanks Shaun for the tip.