If you worked in direct response when infomercials were still treated like the “overnight fringe,” you remember the atmosphere: fast growth, real opportunity, and a steady drumbeat of skepticism—especially from regulators and the broader ad world.
That pressure created a choice for the industry:
Keep operating like a gold rush… or build a structure that could last.
That’s the context behind the National Infomercial Marketing Association (NIMA)—a Washington, D.C.–based trade association described as forming in the early 1990s to represent the infomercial ecosystem and push standards and self-regulation before regulation was forced on it.
One widely-cited overview notes NIMA was formed in late 1990 and by 1993 had 200+ members committed to standards “with teeth.” (Source)
What Was NIMA?
At its core, NIMA existed to do three jobs:
- Represent infomercial marketers and the companies supporting them (media, production, fulfillment, call centers, payment, legal).
- Establish guidelines that protected consumers and reduced reputational blowback.
- Demonstrate self-regulation—especially relevant in an era of heightened scrutiny around deceptive advertising and claim substantiation.
In plain English: NIMA was about legitimacy.
Because direct response has always lived on a fragile asset—trust. Lose that, and you don’t just lose performance. You lose distribution, tolerance from vendors, and the ability to scale.
Why NIMA Formed When It Did
The timing wasn’t accidental.
As program-length advertising grew, the category’s visibility did too—along with the number of operators who were either careless with claims or comfortable living in the gray. That’s how a category invites the kind of oversight nobody wants.
NIMA’s formation and early activity are described in industry retrospectives as involving direct engagement with policymakers and regulators, including early participation by government speakers connected to consumer protection. (Source)
Early Leadership and the Industry “Grows Up” Moment
An industry retrospective recounts that in 1991, NIMA was “officially established,” with an early executive committee and marketing guidelines revised with FTC staff input—then followed by a first trade show in Las Vegas. (Source)
That detail matters because it tells you what NIMA really was:
A professionalization project.
Not a club. Not a logo. Not a cocktail party.
A signal to the market that direct response intended to operate like a grown-up industry.
The Part People Miss: FTC Claim Substantiation Was the Real Battlefield
Here’s the truth: most “controversies” in infomercial history weren’t about production quality. They were about claims—what you said the product would do, how you said it, and whether you could prove it.
The legal framework around deceptive advertising and the risks associated with infomercial formats were already being analyzed in the early 1990s, including how these ads could mislead consumers if not properly constrained. (Source)
That’s why “standards with teeth” wasn’t marketing language—it was survival language.
In direct response, compliance isn’t a box you check at the end. It’s part of the offer. It’s part of credibility. And credibility is part of conversion.
From NIMA to ERA: A Name Change That Reflected a Bigger Reality
As the business expanded beyond classic long-form into short-form, shopping channels, and eventually multi-channel direct response, the association’s mandate broadened.
One widely cited history notes that in 1997, NIMA changed its name to the Electronic Retailing Association (ERA) to reflect how direct response was expanding into more media and a broader “electronic retailing” model. (Source)
This wasn’t just branding.
It was an admission that “infomercials” were no longer the whole story—direct response was becoming an ecosystem.
Why NIMA Still Matters in 2026
If you’re producing for today’s hybrid world—CTV, streaming, paid social, performance creative—here’s the takeaway:
NIMA wasn’t protecting a format. It was protecting an outcome: response at scale.
The platforms change. The production tools change. The distribution rules change.
But the fundamentals NIMA was trying to defend—truthful claims, substantiation discipline, and consumer trust—are still the difference between a campaign that spikes… and a brand that lasts.
While NIMA was eventually disbanded, its existence tells you something important about that era: the infomercial business was big enough—and complex enough—to need its own shared standards and professional forum. Today the logos, channels, and platforms have changed, but the underlying need hasn’t. Direct response still rewards the same fundamentals NIMA championed: accountability, measurable results, and marketers willing to learn from what actually works.
Quick Timeline
- Late 1990: NIMA described as forming in late 1990; by 1993 it had 200+ members committed to standards “with teeth.” (Source)
- 1991: Industry retrospectives describe NIMA being officially established and revising guidelines with FTC staff comments. (Source)
- 1997: NIMA changes its name to the Electronic Retailing Association (ERA). (Source)
Note: Depending on the source, you’ll see “formed late 1990” versus “officially established in 1991.” Both can be true in practice—many associations form informally before formal incorporation/structure.
Sources Worth Clicking
- Electronic Retailer Magazine: “Reflections on an Industry” (NIMA/ERA retrospective)
- Business View Magazine: ERA history & the 1997 name change
- Overview reference noting D.C. base, late 1990 formation, “standards with teeth”
- Fordham Urban Law Journal (1992): Deceptive advertising, infomercials, and regulatory risk
FAQ
What does NIMA stand for?
NIMA stands for the National Infomercial Marketing Association, an industry trade association formed to represent and professionalize the infomercial business. (Source)
Why was NIMA created?
NIMA emerged during a period when the industry needed credibility, standards, and a unified voice—particularly as regulators scrutinized claims and deceptive advertising risk. (Source)
Where was NIMA based?
NIMA is commonly described as Washington, D.C.–based, reflecting its standards and policy-facing role. (Source)
When did NIMA become the Electronic Retailing Association (ERA)?
Sources commonly cite 1997 as the year NIMA changed its name to the Electronic Retailing Association (ERA). (Source)
What’s the relevance of NIMA’s work today?
Even in a CTV + streaming + social world, the fundamentals remain: truthful claims, substantiation discipline, and consumer trust still determine whether response marketing scales or collapses.
