# adverteerder gestimuleerde mededeling



## Matron

Hi there,

Struggling to understand what this is actually saying - what it means...

For me: "A promotional announcement made by an advertiser may therefore constitute advertising" does not make any sense in context of the passage below.

*Context*: Definition of advertising - Art. 1 - Dutch Advertising Code - here

Ook mededelingen over een goed/dienst/denkbeeld, waarbij op geen enkele wijze sprake is van uitlokking of beïnvloeding door een adverteerder, zijn geen reclame in de zin van dit artikel. *Indien er wel van een door een adverteerder gestimuleerde mededeling sprake is, kan er dus sprake van reclame zijn**. 

*= Of dergelijke mededelingen aan de adverteerder kunnen worden toegerekend, wordt vastgesteld door de Reclame Code Commissie en/of het College van Beroep, zal onderwerp kunnen zijn van een bijzondere reclamecode en zal o.a. afhangen van de vraag of de adverteerder feitelijk invloed kan uitoefenen op de mededeling(en) en zo nee, of de adverteerder zich (van te voren) voldoende heeft ingespannen of inspant om ervoor te zorgen dat de mededeling aan de NRC voldoet of gaat voldoen.


----------



## eno2

The previous phrase is decisive:  The criterium is about instigation and influencing (manipulation)
The use of 'gestimuleerde' is a bit  unhappy. But it links to 'instigation' You could use 'manipulate'. you could use instigate. You could use influence. I don't know how you translated that previous sentence. Of course you can't use twice the same wording.

The original doesn't say or suggest that the advertiser *made* the announcement, only that he '*stimulated*' it. (perhaps meaning that he paid for it???) You could look into that also...


----------



## Matron

eno2 said:


> The previous phrase is decisive:  The criterium is about instigation and influencing (manipulation)
> The use of 'gestimuleerde' is a bit  unhappy. But it links to 'instigation' You could use 'manipulate'. you could use instigate. You could use influence. I don't know how you translated that previous sentence. Of course you can't use twice the same wording.
> 
> The original doesn't say or suggest that the advertiser *made* the announcement, only that he '*stimulated*' it. (perhaps meaning that he paid for it???) You could look into that also...
> The original doesn't say that's it's an *announcement*, it says: * message*/*communiction*. You could look into that also...



Thanks again eno2 - yes it's not that easy to grasp what they are trying to say! So you think "gestimuleerde mededeling" will be "stimulated/ fostered communication" and not "promoted communication"?? I've seen  gestimuleerde translated as promoted before... either way I'm still not sure what it is trying to say... in the sentence before it is saying that in order to be classed as an advert the communication about a service or product must incite or influence the recipient. It then says... a promoted / stimulated communication from the advertiser therefore can constitute advertising.

Unless - it might be necessary to refer to the previous paragraph which reads: _Aankondigingen, die geen enkel aanprijzend element bevatten, zijn geen reclame in de zin van dit artikel. Te denken valt aan zuiver feitelijke mededelingen, bijvoorbeeld over openingstijden en louter feitelijke informatie omtrent (gewijzigd) beleid van overheden of bedrijven
_
I wonder if _*Indien er wel van een door een adverteerder gestimuleerde mededeling sprake is, kan er dus sprake van reclame zijn - *_is referring to "promoted communications - as in communications of factual statements - so the advertiser is promoting (paying for) those communications - and it can still potentially be classed as advertising - as there the advertiser is exerting influence... I don't know...


----------



## eno2

> *in the sentence before i*t is saying that in order to be classed as an advert the communication about a service or product must incite or influence the recipient. It then says... a promoted / stimulated communication from the advertiser therefore can constitute advertising.


Yes. But it says it the negative way. With a negation. When there's no
'uitlokking (incite) or beïnvloeding. (influence)' whatsoever, there's no advertising.
Then it repeats it the positive way. But with 'stimulating'. Stimulating is not unlike inciting and influencing, just a bit weaker. So it downsizes a bit the criterium. Also, as it's put in as an adjective to 'communication' (stimulating communication), it's also weaker than inciting/influencing the reader, because of indirect.... In fact, it's the indirect expression 'stimulating communication' that causes translation problems.
 I'm translating   fairly literally  now: "_if it is a question of the advertiser stimulating a communication, it can be a case of advertisement."_
Repeating twice "sprake zijn van" (be a question of) in the original is also a weak feature.
Hope that helps a bit...


> I wonder if _*Indien er wel van een door een adverteerder gestimuleerde mededeling sprake is, kan er dus sprake van reclame zijn - *_is referring to "promoted communications - as in communications of factual statements - so the advertiser is promoting (paying for) those communications - and it can still potentially be classed as advertising - as there the advertiser is exerting influence... I don't know...


 "Stimulating communications" can mean promoted (paid for) communications, though from the grammatical/semantical viewpoint in a thwarted, ambiguous way. That's why I called 'gestimuleerde mededeling' an unhappy wording.


----------



## Matron

eno2 said:


> Yes. But it says it the negative way. With a negation. When there's no
> 'uitlokking (incite) or beïnvloeding. (influence)' whatsoever, there's no advertising.
> Then it repeats it the positive way. But with 'stimulating'. Stimulating is not unlike inciting and influencing, just a bit weaker. So it downsizes a bit the criterium. Also, as it's put in as an adjective to 'communication' (stimulating communication), it's also weaker than inciting/influencing the reader, because of indirect.... In fact, it's the indirect expression 'stimulating communication' that causes translation problems.
> I'm translating   fairly literally  now: "_if it is a question of the advertiser stimulating a communication, it can be a case of advertisement."_
> Repeating twice "sprake zijn van" (be a question of) in the original is also a weak feature.
> Hope that helps a bit...
> "Stimulating communications" can mean promoted (paid for) communications, though from the grammatical/semantical viewpoint in a thwarted, ambiguous way. That's why I called 'gestimuleerde mededeling' an unhappy wording.



Ah ok! Thanks again eno2 - much appreciated. Really helpful as always.


----------



## Matron

I wonder if there is a more fluent translation for "Stimulating communication"...


----------



## eno2

I would have to simply scrap that sentence of mine: Also, as it's put in as an adjective to 'communication' (stimulating communication). 
In: _*een door een adverteerder gestimuleerde mededeling, *the participle 
'gestimuleerde" belongs  to 'adverteerder'.
So it will always be
'a communication stimulated by an advertiser'. Whatever way of stimulating is meant. 
_


----------

