My marketing department wants to do a billboard ad that states our banks name, and include the word "Ipod" and also the term "$50". These are both bonuses that we give out for opening certain accounts or adding account services. The billboard would not state anything about these being bonuses. However, the public should associate these as bonuses because of our prior billboards over that past year that stated the $50 was a bonus for a free checking account and included the appropriate Reg DD bonus disclosures.

My marketing people think just stating the term "$50" or the word "Ipod" does not state a bonus and therefore the bonus disclosures would not be required on the billboard. Per 230.8 (d), for this new proposed billboard, do you think we are actually stating a bonus in the advertisement thus triggering the need for the required bonus disclosures?

The definition of the term "advertisement" in Regulation DD uses the phrase "directly or indirectly." I believe this billboard indirectly promotes the availability of deposit accounts. But it could as easily be a bonus in connection with a new HELOC or car loan. There's no black and no white here. Only acres of gray.

John, Thanks for your response. I also only see acres of gray in this one. I guess this is a situation where I, as the compliance officer, must make a decision and depending on which way I decide, I have to be able to fully explain my decision to my marketing people if I don't allow it or allow it and be ready to defend my decision to regulators if they ever question it. It's all part of being in this profession!

I would ask marketing what message it is that they want to convey? They want to convey that a bonus is available, they make the disclosures.

Yes you could have billboard with just words on it, but that isn't what marketing does, now is it.