Posts Tagged ‘asa’
The folks at TNT Post have been doing adverts, but alas, they’ve been chatting a load of BS. They compared themselves to the Royal Mail and implied that they offer the same service and similar prices… when they don’t.
The TNT leaflet showed a picture of a bloke in a TNT uniform and said: “What does my postie look like? Like this – in a smart uniform which our posties wear at all times on duty. Like Royal Mail, all are CRB-checked and fully trained in how to keep mail safe and secure.”
“We operate under exactly the same rules and regs as Royal Mail – authorised by the government to carry mail and watched over by Ofcom.”
However, they don’t and the ad got banned by the ASA.
Royal Mail, naturally, were the ones to flag this up, saying that the ad was misleading because TNT aren’t required to deliver to every address in the UK on a next-day basis like they are and, not only that, it isn’t fair that TNT implied that the service they provided was better than Royal Mail’s.
TNT said that the whole thing was designed to make consumers feel safe and secure, rather than make Royal Mail cry.
However, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the ad suggested that TNT was subject to the same service levels as Royal Mail in all areas, and that’s not the case.
ASA said the reference to mail being “delivered … all over the UK” was misleading and that information in the advert didn’t allow readers to identify for themselves how TNT was better than the Royal Mail in respect of prices and such.
ASA ruled that the ads mustn’t appear again: “We told TNT Post UK to ensure future ads did not suggest that they were subject to the same service levels as Royal Mail, that they delivered mail themselves to all parts of the UK or that their prices were competitive in relation to those offered by Royal Mail unless they could substantiate that that was the case.”
We all know advertising is supposed to make you want to buy stuff, but we have a reasonable expectation that the adverts we are subjected to are not a bunch of outright lies. That’s what the Advertising Standards Agency is there for,right?
However, just because businesses can’t lie, doesn’t mean they aren’t found guilty of stretching the truth a little bit. Strictly speaking, you might consider it lying but the ASA calls it ‘misleading’. A new ruling from the ASA has just banned a Virgin Media advert claiming that Sky customers could save over £400 a year by switching, when chances are, they actually couldn’t.
A regional press ad for Virgin Media Ltd compared Sky’s ‘The Family Bundle’ with Virgin Media’s ‘Premiere Collection’. The ‘receipts’ shown in the advert listed the features and monthly total price of the respective packages. Sky’s Family Bundle was priced at £103.65 and Virgin Media’s Premier Collection at £67.99. The advert stated an “Annual saving with Virgin Media £427.92″.
The problem was not, actually, with the facts- while Virgin had handily included the cost of BT Sport, which is actually paid to BT rather than Sky- Virgin maintained that 100% of Sky customers who took the exact combination of services set out would achieve the claimed saving. Nor was this disputed by the ASA. Virgin also claimed that the trifling detail of the exact amount of consumers holding this particular combination of services did not affect the comparison being made or a consumer’s understanding of the price saving.
However, on this point the ASA disagreed, given that fewer than 0.1% of Sky customers did have those services, and could therefore possibly save over £400. The ASA noted that the ad was phrased conditionally, and that Virgin Media did not claim that all customers would save over £400, however the ASA felt that “it was necessary for a reasonable proportion of consumers to achieve the claimed saving,” adding that “using the comparison in this example, only a relatively small proportion of Sky customers would save to the degree claimed. “
As a result that advert was banned on the grounds of misleading by exaggeration. Moral of the story- don’t believe everything you read in the papers and do your own research when comparing costs of broadband and television services.
Have you seen the Morrisons TV commercial which shows a kid saying she’s done well in school and then her mum makes her a burger and she knocks the salad off? That’s what kids do right? Oh, children! WHAT ARE THEY LIKE?!
Of course, the advert wasn’t particularly good, but it was completely harmless right? WRONG. The Advertising Standards Authority have banned it because they think it promotes bad eating habits to children.
Watch the advert below. If you have any children in the vicinity, be sure to avert their eyes or they’ll start mainlining bricks of lard.
The Advertising Standards Authority received 11 complaints (presumably from other advertising agencies or people who are so health conscious that they’re borderline pervy) and the ASA upheld the gripes, saying that the girl in the ad was so keen to eat the burger on its own that she immediately removed the salad. The ASA added that the she discarded the salad in a “careless manner”, suggesting she had no intention of eating it later.
“Because we considered the ad placed an emphasis on the burger being the preferable option to the salad, we concluded it condoned poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle, especially in children, and that it disparaged good dietary practice,” ruled the ASA. “The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.”
Jesus H. Christ.
But hotheaded tea drinking chimps everywhere are now going to have to concede that PG Tips pyramid bags DO let out more flavour than Tetley’s round ones.
Tetley were furious when Johnny Vegas and that godforsaken monkey appeared to trash their round teabags in a recent advert. They sit at the kitchen table and do a test to see which teabags are best, with Monkey concluding that:
‘PG Tips uses pyramid bags, so if we test one against a regular tea bag … you’ll see the tea has got more room to move, freeing the great fresh taste for a perfect cuppa.’
Tetley said that although they weren’t mentioned in the ad, it was obvious that as they are purveyors of round teabags, they were being targeted and ‘denigrated’ by a knitted primate.
BUT the Advertising Standards Authority upheld PG Tips claims, and enraged the Tetley teafolk by saying that pyramid bags WERE better, and that their round ones basically suck.
‘Unilever provided test results which showed that the infusion of tea, at 40 seconds and two minutes into brewing, was greater when using a pyramid teabag than when using a round teabag. We therefore concluded that the ad did not exaggerate the capability and performance of the advertised product and was not misleading.’
A few people grassed TalkTalk up to the ASA about their three ad-campaigns were a load of cobblers, especially the claim that they were offering “the UK’s lowest priced, totally unlimited broadband”.
One of the grasses was BT and the ASA ruled in their favour, saying that Talktalk failed to substantiate their claims and that the ISP’s price comparisons also showed inaccuracies, which altogether, meant that TalkTalk had “misled customers”.
The ruling said (and you can read it here): “Most consumers would believe that, at the time the ad appeared, TalkTalk offered the cheapest unlimited broadband package in Britain, in comparison to both their competitors’ standard and promotional prices.
“Because that was not the case, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”
A TalkTalk spokesmachine said in a statement: “We’re committed to making Britain better off and consistently offer our customers Britain’s best prices for TV, broadband, mobile and home phone. As such, TalkTalk homes make significant savings in comparison to our competitors.”
“We note the ASA’s comments about ensuring comparison text is prominent and look forward to continuing to provide Britain’s lowest prices.”
Then, for good measure, supergrass BT got slapped by the ASA too, for a mailout that stated, “SKY TO SWITCH OFF O2 BROADBAND BY APRIL 2014″ on the envelope. They too, were being misleading.
Savvy web users might be able to spot a rubbish fake crown logo or a web address called ‘giveusyourdetails.gov.passport.’ But others are regularly being led down the garden path, according to research by the Advertising Standards Authority.
The ASA is so concerned about this that it’s launching a new awareness campaign, which will lead people to official government web pages and away from the dodgy ones.
It’s also considering tougher enforcement of fake sites and advertisers, pledging to work with Google and Bing to weed out the infiltrators.
Although 8 out of 10 people surveyed could spot the official passport application site, some of the other sites posing as government sites are quite convincing. Only half guessed that a site replacing Births, Deaths and Marriage certificates was actually a commercial website.
‘We’re focused on tackling any sites that continue to mislead, in support of other enforcement activity.’ Said Miles Lockwood from the ASA. ‘We’re also working with search engines and government to ensure the public are protected. In the meantime, always start at gov.uk to access a government service.’
The four video ads on Jaguar’s website showed a car razzing through a tunnel and crossing over the single white lines in the middle of a road, before driving across a mountain road at night. That’s not advisable in terms of the Highway Code, but c’mon! It is meant to be fantasy, right?
Another clip showed a car driving at high speed, while voice-overs said: “The adaptive dynamics technology reacts 20 times faster than the human eye. It delivers a smooth drive by continuously analysing speed, steering and body movement of the car 500 times a second, giving every journey an instinctive, stable and agile ride.”
The adverts ended with the Jaguar logo alongside text reading: “Jaguar. How alive are you?” to the sound of an engine being revved to oblivion.
One stupid viewer complained that the ads were irresponsible because they “glorified speed and encouraged dangerous driving”.
Just like Shreddies adverts encourage Nestle to force grandmothers to work in cereal knitting sweatshops when they should be enjoying their retirement.
Jaguar said that their videos were shot on the open highway in Switzerland on closed sections of road on the Susten Pass and the Grimsel Pass. Their caption didn’t make this clear, but really, the fact it was an advert should’ve been clue enough.
The company said the adverts’ were there to emphasise the technical features and abilities of the cars and the clips where we saw cars crossing lanes were there to highlight the lightweight construction for cornering stability and safety. They added that these adverts “at no time demonstrated any dangerous driving”, and there was no indication that speed limits were being broken.
The ASA disagreed, saying that the impression they got was Jaguar were focusing on speed and acceleration, rather than safety because of all the high tempo music and revving engines. They also noted that the cars were driving in a manner that would be “irresponsible and illegal” on a public road in the UK.
The ASA said: “We considered that the cars were being handled in a dangerous manner that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly. Because we considered that speed was the main message of the ads and the ads portrayed the cars being driven in a dangerous manner, we concluded the ads were irresponsible and condoned dangerous driving.”
They ruled that Jaguar mustn’t show these ads again and that they shouldn’t “portray speed as the focus of an ad in future… and not to portray driving behaviour that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly in future”.
Jesus Christ Almighty.
There could be more bad news for the Government’s blighted Green Deal scheme. A new ruling by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) could mean that Green Deal operators face having to hand back tens of thousands of pounds to consumers after the Green Deal Finance Company was found to have mis-sold the cash-saving benefits of the scheme in their advertising literature.
The ASA ruled on three separate issues- marketing claims that the Green Deal payment plans are the cheapest on the market, assurances that the so-called Golden Rule would deliver “peace of mind” with financial savings that were equal to or greater than the costs attached to the energy bill and the failure to publish details of hidden charges, including arrangement and assessment fees, as well as exit penalties.
While the ASA ruling itself does not affect Green Deals already done- it merely requires the offending advertisements be removed or revised- consumer lawyers are warning that the ruling could set a precedent for disgruntled consumers to seek redress for Green Deal mis-selling.
Consumer law solicitor Kerry Gwyther, a partner at leading national law firm TLT, explained that while the ASA ruling does not necessarily mean potential Green Deal mis-selling cases are in the bag, it is often a good starting point for claims of misrepresentation.
“The ASA normally use Trading Standards’ levels of determining misleading claims and its rulings do go a long way in helping to present a successful case. While there is no automatic right of action, the ASA ruling very often means the advertising is in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations that can lead to further action being taken,” he explained.
“A consumer is entitled to take proceedings using Common Law and some parts of the Consumer Protection legislation if, as a result of this ruling, they feel they have been misled into signing up for the Green Deal. If a consumer has been induced to enter into an agreement by misleading claims, a court may well find in the consumer’s favour and they may well be able to walk away from the contract without further payments or seek damages for any losses suffered” he added, sagely.
Advertising law specialist Mike Northern agreed , commenting that consumers would now be able to use the ASA ruling in any future court action, suggesting that “a judge would be influenced to find in favour of an application supported by an ASA adjudication like this.”
The complaint was brought by South East-based Crystal Home Improvements, who were very concerned that consumers were being treated unfairly, and not at all concerned that Green Deal alternatives might be cutting into their profits.
A spokesman for the company told ClickGreen: “We are happy with the ASA decision that confirmed our suspicion that the Green Deal was being mis-sold to consumers. This is not the first time we have successfully challenged the Green Deal and we will continue to highlight the many disadvantages of this poorly run scheme.”
However, before getting too excited, it is important to note that the Green Deal Finance Company itself is a business to business organisation, and the ASA noted that leaflet ruled as misleading was probably not viewed by a vast number of people. Any claims of mis-selling would have to be made as a result of being fraudulently enticed by advertising using similar claims to those outlawed in this ruling.
EE proclaimed that they were “Britain’s most reliable broadband for staying connected”, and then the Advertising Standards Authority politely informed them that they weren’t, smacking their legs in the process.
The company based their claim on Ofcom broadband tests, which showed that EE achieved the lowest rate of packet loss, jitter and latency. “As those measures were mostly concerned with real-time activities such as VoIP and video calling, EE thought a claim which focused on reliability as it related to those activities was appropriate,” the ASA stated in its adjudication.
However, grassing them up were BT who challenged the claims, saying that EE’s scores in each of those categories were not better than theirs to a “statistically significant degree” and failed to take the wireless router performance into account.
ASA sided with class swot, BT, adding that Ofcom’s report “clearly stated that those differences were not statistically significant when compared to BT” and that EE “had not provided any evidence to demonstrate superior wireless router performance in relation to the maintenance of a connection”.
EE can’t run their adverts in the current form from now on.
However, EE did manage to flick the Vs behind teacher’s back toward after BT complained that EE’s claims to have Britain’s first plug-and-play fibre broadband router were wrong.
The ASA found that EE’s Bright Box beat BT’s Home Hub 5, to which BT screamed “OH GOD IT IS SO UNFAIR!”
BT have been told off by the Advertising Standards Authority for making promises about their fibre broadband speeds that they can’t actually see through. Potential customers are getting told one thing and receiving something quite different once they’ve signed up.
So what’s the problem? Are they just flat-out lying?
Well, BT have said that their line-checking service isn’t as accurate as it should be, mainly thanks to the broadband wing not being able to get sufficient data from its own infrastructure arm.
The ASA weren’t impressed that one customer got told that they could receive fibre speeds of 33Mbits per second via checkeronline , but that wasn’t possible at all. BT argued that these were “typical” speeds for what 80% of users would receive, but confessed that this particular user would not be able to achieve the quoted speeds “due to a variety of reasons”.
“Because the website included a download claim related to a specific address, which was not available to that consumer, we concluded the ad was misleading,” the ASA said, reminding that BT that it really have to make sure their checker “provided accurate information” as speed was one of the pivotal reasons why people signed up for broadband contracts.
BT said that they would sort it out and that the dog ate their homework and that BT Retail doesn’t really talk to Openreach and the whole thing is a bit of a mess.
“Openreach confirmed that they were a functionally separate organisation to BT’s consumer facing divisions, and that they provided wholesale services to their communications providers and that included information services such as line speed estimates,” the ASA said.
While children might be taken in by those healthy, bouncing blackcurrants, everybody else knows that it’s just purple sugar liquid which has the potential to create a dental apocalypse.
Apart from, it would seem, Ribena itself, whose latest promotion has been banned because they’ve over-exaggerated health claims. The website for Ribena Plus, which has no added sugar (that’s ‘added’ sugar), went a little bit over the top about its vitamin content.
By saying ‘vitamin A… helps keep your vision in tip top condition’ and ‘Vitamin C… it helps immunity’, they flouted EU guidelines and have found themselves in hot water with the Advertising Standards Authority.
The ASA has ruled that they failed to convey the meaning of the EU’s health claims to shoppers, because they implied that vitamins optimise the body’s performance rather than just maintaining it.
‘Ribena Plus – maintains normal function!’ – catchy, eh?
This is the second brand formerly made by GlaxoSmithKline that has been in trouble with the ASA for overstating health claims. Lucozade Sport’s ads were banned when it claimed that it ‘hydrates better than water.’
Still, you can’t really blame them. Attempting to translate convoluted EU health guidelines for the average consumer is a copywriting minefield – let alone trying to make it jolly and rhyming and blackcurrant-y…
Wonga is in hot water again, this time for an ad that claimed that their flabberghastingly high APR of 5853% wasn’t really that important and you should just forget about it – la la la.
The rubbery puppets of doom are shown ‘simplifying’ the terms of Wonga loans, thus: ‘Right, we’re going to explain the costs of a Wonga short-term loan. Some people think they will pay thousands of per cent of interest. They won’t of course – that’s just the way annual rates are calculated. Say you borrowed £150 for 18 days, it would cost you £33.49.’
BUT, 31 people complained to the ASA, saying that they were misleading customers with a confusing message which encouraged them to disregard their insane interest rates.
Wonga said that they were only trying to give a transparent example of a typical Wonga loan but they regretted confusing customers.
However, the ASA said they understood that APR did not apply for the time period for a short term loan, but banned it anyway, because it irresponsibly encouraged people to take out loans without considering the APR. They said:
‘We considered that, though it attempted to clarify the costs associated with a Wonga loan, the ad created confusion as to the rates that would apply. On that basis, we concluded that the ad was misleading.’
Maybe if Wonga are looking for an example of a representative loan, they could show the puppets struggling to make ends meet and turning to rubbery prostitution to pay it back?
It might be made from 4 legged chickens from hell, but the Advertising Standards Authority have rejected complaints that last year’s KFC Christmas advert ‘mocked elements of Christian worship.’
The snarky musical ad encourages people of all faiths to set aside their differences at Christmas and chow down on a grease-ridden bucket of genetically modified poultry.
The 30 Christian complainants got cross at the scene which features a group of carol singers, who trill the lines: ‘We turned up at your house again, singing all our stupid songs.’ In reply, the homeowner sings: ‘Normally I’d hose you down but now it just seems wrong.’
(STUPID CHRISTIAN SONGS! Songs about angels and the Baby Jesus – stupid?? Surely not!)
While it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, KFC maintained that they didn’t intend to mock any faith or religion, and that the homeowner was meant to be like Scrooge. As anyone with even a sliver of a sense of humour could interpret. But 30 outraged people didn’t see it that way.
Even so, it’s a triumph for common sense as the ASA found it ‘unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.’
You know what’s actually offensive? The new KFC Triple X-tra meal, aimed at REAL MEN, and containing a whopping, artery-rupturing 1130 calories.
Another day, another dodgy advert that treats women like sex dolls, this time for VIP e-cigarettes. E-cig advertising is controversial anyway, without making an ad featuring a quite angry looking and aroused woman saying ‘I want to see it. Feel it, hold it. Put it in my mouth.’ HAHA, she’s talking about e-cigarettes, but it’s hilarious because you – yes, you, the saddo on the sofa with the joggies that smell of rotten vegetables – you think she’s talking about your knob!
The classy folks at VIP did a male version (for, you know, balance) with him very helpfully asking: ‘Do you want to see it? I can get it out if you’d like. You can feel it hold it, put it in your mouth and see how great it tastes.’
THEN, the piece de resistance of awfulness was the tagline – ‘if you wanna vape, then vape with VIP’. Geddit? We’re assuming ‘vape’ refers to ‘vapours’ but hey, ‘Vape’ also rhymes with RAPE. HAHA, clever, eh? Someone find that copywriter and give him (let’s hope it’s a him) a huge congratulatory kick in the balls for that one.
Anyway, there have been 1,159 completely justified complaints to the ASA due to the overtly sexualized nature of the ad, which was broadcast in the ad breaks between ‘I’m A Celebrity’ last year.
Clearcast originally cleared the ad to appear after the 9pm watershed, and said that they didn’t think it was demeaning or sexist, it was just suggestive. While the ASA haven’t banned it outright, it can only be broadcast after 11pm.
How about just throwing it in a landfill with all the e-cigarettes?