Tag: ASA

ASA aims to show it’s no fool

beanteddyThe Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has attempted to show that it has a backbone.

The toothless watchdog has released its annual report which it claims highlights its “big five” misleading advertising priorities, including free trials, pricing, daily deals, testimonials and health claims and what its been doing to tackle them.

The ASA said that last year 70 percent of its cases were about misleading advertising. It said making sure that responsible advertising isn’t being under-cut by the irresponsible helped get a fair deal for consumers and competitors.

It added that last year it received 31,298 complaints about 18,990 ads, while its work led to  3,700 ads being changed or withdrawn. It also dealt with 6,273 complaints about 5,338 online ads, which made up 28 percent of  its workload

The moves will do nothing to appease critics of the watchdog, which last year was described as “toothless” and “feared as much as a monster under the bed.”,  after it gave a company, which repeatedly violated ad terms, a tiny slap on the knuckles.

And it seems it’s continuing with its softly, softly approach, this week partly upholding two separate complaints about DSG Retail and Plusnet.

DSG was given a slap on the wrist after the ASA received two complaints about the company. It said two issues were investigated, one of which was upheld and the other not upheld.

The complaints centred around a TV and a press ad for tablets and e-Readers. The TV ad for PC World featured various tablets and e-Readers. The voice-over stated “At Currys PC World, get up to £80 Cashback on tablets and e-readers when you buy a case too”. At the same time there was also a large bauble that displayed text that stated “up to £80 Cashback”. On-screen text also stated “Conditions apply. Excludes Ipad”.

Images of the Blackberry Playbook, Google Nexus and Samsung Note appeared separately on the screen, each offering cashback options.

The press ad also stated “up to £80 Cashback on tablets and eReaders when you buy any case”. The ad featured a number of devices which detailed the price of the item “after cashback”.

The ad included an image of a Kindle. Text stated “£10 Cashback* 6” eReader The new Kindle features built in Wi-Fi allowing you to download a book in 60 seconds and weights less than 170grams. £59 AFTER CASHBACK* £69 payable in store + cost of case”. Text at the bottom of the ad stated “*when you buy a case”. The ad also included a box, which include the text “the largest range of tablet and eReader cases on the high Street From only £9.99”.

Two complainants challenged whether the TV ad was misleading because it did not make clear the extent of the consumers’ commitment in order to obtain the advertised discounts.

The press ad was queried for the same reason. DSG tried to get clever in its defence claiming that by definition, a ‘misleading advert’ had to be one that created a false impression and that an ad could not be considered misleading by not including a piece of information that a consumer may wish to know.

It said the absence of such information would only cause an ad to be misleading if it subsequently created a false impression and believed a case for a false impression had not been set out by the ASA.

However the ASA fought back claiming that an ad did not need to contain false information or create a ‘false impression’ in order for it to be misleading and that it should be considered misleading if it omitted significant information about the featured offer that would affect a consumer’s informed decision about whether or how to buy the product.

It let the company off the press ad but ruled the TV ad should not be shown again.

Over in the broadband camp Plusnet faced a similar fate after  airing a TV ad claiming that everyone was “a winner with the PlusNet broadband half price sale.”

It promised unlimited broadband from £4.99 a month with the smaller text claiming “with £13.99 monthly line rental” and “new customers only; £8.49 a month for customers in certain areas. £5.99 router delivery. 12 month minimum term.”

However, viewers weren’t impressed. One challenged whether the on-screen text was legible, while a second viewer challenged whether the ad was misleading, because the offer did not apply to “everyone”.

Other viewers challenged whether the claim “All broadband’s [sic] half off” was misleading, because they understood the offer applied only to packages that included line rental whereas broadband-only services remained at full price.

PlusNet said it understood the on-screen text was of the required minimum height. It said the offer was available to existing customers as well as new customers so the on-screen text would be amended to state “£8.49 a month for customers in certain areas. £5.99 router delivery. 12 month minimum term.
The ASA agreed that the TV ad conformed to its code.

However it didn’t like Plusnet’s claim that everyone was a winner, claiming that although the offer was in fact available to existing customers it considered the inclusion of that condition, which was in any case contradictory, in the ad was likely to lead existing customers to believe they could not benefit from the offer and that they might miss out on the promotional price as a result. It therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

TalkTalk faces “doublespeak” wrath of ASA

PhoneTalkTalk has faced the simpering wrath of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The telecoms company has been told off after it promised customers a “free” YouView box alongside a TV and phone package on a TV ad.

A direct mailing advert also had the same promise.

The complainant challenged whether the claims that the YouView box was “free” in the ads because there was a £50 installation fee.

TalkTalk said its offer of a YouView set top box was a conditional purchase offer in accordance with the CAP Guidance on the use of “free”. It explained that the price of itsPlus telecoms package was established in the marketplace prior to the addition of the free set top box.

At the time the YouView box was introduced, it said it did not increase the price of the paid-for items, for example the Plus telecoms package.

TalkTalk also tried to cover its tracks explaining that that installation of the YouView box had to be undertaken by an engineer so as to ensure proper activation of the TV service. It said The engineer installation charge had not been inflated to recover the cost of the free YouView box and pointed out that both ads made clear that there was a £50 installation charge with the free YouView box.

The ASA said it understood that the £50 engineer installation fee was payable by all consumers who opted to take the YouView box and that the YouView box and the £50 fee were inextricably linked.

However, it pointed out that when a consumer unbundled the YouView box from the telecoms subscription, they effectively paid £50 less, which was the cost of the installation fee.

Because the fee was payable to TalkTalk and not a third party, all consumers who took up the claimed “free” offer were charged £50 more than those who did not.

The watchdog said it therefore considered that because the YouView box and the £50 fee were inextricably linked, the claims that the box was “free” were misleading.

It ordered that the claims should not appear again in their current form and told TalkTalk to take care in future when describing an item as “free”, in the future.

Phones 4U gets ads banned by watchdog

phonesPhones 4U has earned itself a ban over two adverts after the Advertising Standards Authority  (ASA) described them as “misleading”.

The retailer fell foul of the toothsome watchdog after people complained that its “upgrades 4u and u and u” ads, aimed at trying to show that people could upgrade with the retailer on any network and not the one they were signed to, were misleading.

They said that  the claims didn’t apply to customers on all networks, including Three and Tesco mobile, as the voice over in the comical broadcast ads suggested.

Both ads  focused on a range of “comical characters”, being told they could upgrade their phones despite their traits.

The voice over said:  “Listen up you lot. You can upgrade your phones at Phones4U”. The ad featured a number of characters with a range of habits such as smelling of fish, keeping a lot of cats and wearing gilets. The voice-over indicated that they could all get upgrades saying “Upgrades for you and you and you at Phones4U”. The on-screen text stated “T&Cs apply”.

In the second ad the voiceover said: “Listen up you lot. You can upgrade your phones at Phones4U.” A woman asked, “I’m scared of long-term commitment. Can I?” The voice-over replied, “I hear you lady. With our exclusive jump contract you could update your phone every 6 months … Upgrades for you and you and you at Phones4U.” The on screen text said: “T&Cs and exclusions may apply”.

When questioned by the watchdog, Phones 4U tried to plead its innocence, telling the ad police that the purpose of the ads was to tell customers that it was possible to upgrade their handsets at its shops. It said there was a common misconception that this could only be done with an existing network provider and that it aimed to show that it offered upgrades on the majority of network providers, even if the customer did not originally get the handset or contract from its stores.

However, the shop chain acknowledged that some networks such as Three and Tesco Mobile were not partnered with it, and so customers of these networks would not be able to upgrade. It said that it had covered itself against this claiming that its  “T&Cs apply” text showed there were exclusions, as well as offering further literature on its site to back this up.

However, the ASA remained unimpressed, claiming that the content in the ads suggested that everyone could upgrade as a result of the characters used. It said that while some customers would understand “upgrade” as meaning a new phone, they may not have expected to change networks to do so. And while Phones 4U had tried to cover its back with the on screen text referring to T&Cs, the ASA wasn’t convinced these made it clear that it was only possible to upgrade on certain networks.

As a result the company was ordered not to show the ads again in their current form.

However, the ruling is probably a drop in the ocean for the chain which yesterday announced that it would be expanding its services to the mobile network industry.

The company said it plans to launch its first mobile network –  “Life Mobile” – which will run as a mobile virtual network operator on mobile operator EE’s 2G and 3G spectra when it launches in March.