Misleading Advertising/Claims

spongebob

Originally posted by pete

anyways here's the complaint i submitted - did i miss anything?

No ...I think, is there a setup charge of any sort, that is not mentioned in the ad.

The €20 is a time limited promotion for the first 2 or 3 months and will then go up to €25 or €30 or is that from the first of september 2003 , not sure.

The AD is in breach of the following sections of the ASAI code (and probably some more)

2.20 Advertisers should not exploit the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of consumers.

2.22 An advertisement should not mislead by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.

Once you have stated how the ad in non compliant with all the above, you could delve into 2 or the more esoteric faults in the ad.....following.

(If there is a setup charge, the end of the following applies)

2.39 Except in advertisements addressed exclusively to the trade, prices quoted should normally include VAT and other taxes, duties or inescapable costs to the consumer. Where applicable, the amounts of any other charges such as those arising from the method of purchase or payment should be stated.

(On the notorious ineptitude of IOL customer care, should one wish to raise the subject)

2.43 Advertisers should be in a position to meet any reasonable demand created by their advertising. If a product proves to be available in insufficient quantity, advertisers should take immediate action to ensure that any further advertisements are amended or withdrawn.


Anyway thats only a bit of padding for points one and two in Petes complaint.

Impeccably put Pete ply3D

pete

why thank you, sir

during my normal browsing and F5'ing of every Irish site I know that carries advertising this evening, i happened across a flash banner & also a popup verision of the offending ad on www.examiner.ie

MadsL

So basically, bang to rights - left right and centre.

I trust everyone is attaching a downloaded copy of the ad to their complaints...or would that just be pointing out the bleeding obvious. :rolleyes:

By the way did anyone hear the eircom radio ad that claimed to have the 'best content'??

acous

pete: you said "Unless the ad in question is displayed on a non-ESAT owned website then it ain't advertising, kids.".

this statement is untrue. it is advertising, wheither or not it is payed for.

anyway... theres no need to get abusive (you fílthy fúcker).

do i get the tireless rebutter card now? .

spongebob

Once again

If it not paid for and to be found on another parties website it is not ADVERTISING as the ASAI understands it. You may think Pete is pedantic but just wait till you deal with the ASAI themselves.

It is a PROMOTION instead of ADVERTISING. There are plenty of grounds for complaining about a PROMOTION per se as you will see if you click HERE

M

MadsL

I don't want to start this up again but is it not the case that Oceanfree (Esat BT ) and IOL (Ireland On-Line Ltd)
are two separate companies. As such (even if no money changes hands) these banner ads come under the category of advertising?


Esat is highly fragmented...
The challenge for Esat, according to Parkinson, would be to continue company growth while ensuring the company didn't lose its innovative character.

"That was part of the reasoning behind splitting the group into three autonomous groups -- Esat Business, Digifone and Fusion -- with three separate management teams."




Or should I go stick my head in a bucket??

spongebob

From the ASAI website

Chapter Three: Scope and Coverage
The two Codes administered by ASAI - the Code of Advertising Standards and the Code of Sales Promotion Practice - are based on the principles established by the International Chamber of Commerce.

<snip>

It is characteristic of a commercial advertisement subject to the Codes that the advertiser pays or compensates a third party to communicate the commercial message . Advertising that has 'paid- for' space in the media, including the Internet, is covered. It should be noted that, as with traditional media, the editorial or self-advertising content of websites is not covered. Thus the Codes do not generally cover the content of websites other than advertisements in 'paid-for' space within the website.

Esat group companies carry each others ads for FREE Madsl! Nor are they a Third Party

M

pete

I have just had an idea:

People who want to complain about ESAT advertising on oceanfree & IOL should stop talking about it and just go ahead and lodge complaints.

Dustaz

Im sick of this. Sceptre has made clear what the situation is. He has cleaned up a load of ****e from this thread and i am sure has no inclination to do it again.

So im going to pull a devore and make this very clear.


The next person who continues to argue about this will be banned from this forum.


Pete and Mucks position is the correct and factual one. For the purposes of this thread that is what we will go on.

dahamsta

Sorry Dusty, but there is one other aspect of this: Oceanfree and IOL being owned by the same company does not necessarily mean that the ads are "free". For accounting purposes, it's possible - if not likely - that payment has been made for the placements.

adam

pete

Originally posted by dahamsta
Sorry Dusty, but there is one other aspect of this: Oceanfree and IOL being owned by the same company does not necessarily mean that the ads are "free". For accounting purposes, it's possible - if not likely - that payment has been made for the placements.

adam

I have been thinking about this too, but i'm inclined to think that as ESAT BT (the telco selling DSL to the consumer) actually 100% owns both IOL and Oceanfree (the ISP's carrying the "advertisements") then - creative accounting aside - they are one and the same organisation as far as "The Code" goes.

tbh i'm sorry i said anything at this stage....

MadsL

Ok, let's drop it. I'm wrong. I usually am.

I started this thread to have people complain about a misleading ad - not to argue about Esat's accounting policy - if you have lodged a complaint then great. If you have done so quoting the Oceanfree site then perhaps you should also quote the ad on doubleclick as Muck suggests.


Thanks to everyone who lodged a complaint, at least we got the oceanfree one changed PDQ.

p.pete

Originally posted by MadsL
I started this thread to have people complain about a misleading

"Stoners Pot Palace", flagrant false advertising (I don't think I belong here?)

MadsL

Fer god's sake take more tobacco with it.

pete

Much as I hate to drag this back on topic, I got a postcard yesterday, confirming receipt of my complaint.

MadsL

I got mine yesterday. Waste of money don't we think. You complete an online form and we'll send you a postcard. Tsskk!~ E-tub of europe alright. Perhaps we should 'ask Mare', she might open a website or something.

Seriously - is this e-government or the muppet show?

sceptre

Muppet show (though I've quite some respect for the ASAI. An email acknowledgement where possible would make sense though).

Incidentally I got my postcard on Monday.

pete

Ah yes.

Remember this?

Shouldn't be long now.

gonker

got my reply today. "They are sorry" "they wont do it again" "they removed it when they realized how bold they were"
Typical but then what did we expect
gonk

spongebob

The offending ad is still on Doubleclick. Odd!

http://ad.ie.doubleclick.net/viewad/596867/anytime_468_bu.gif

M

pete

Originally posted by gonker
got my reply today. ...
gonk

It should also say "treat this in confidence" somewhere.

pete

The ASAI letters received today contain the recommendation of the secretariat, not the final decision. They have been issued to give both the complainants and ESAT BT an opportunity to respond in advance of the Commission's ruling, and specifically state that they should be treated in confidence.

The fact that the ad is still appearing in it's original form will be communicated to the ASAI as part of the comments process.

I'm sorry I said anything now... if there's any nice mod's in the area, perhaps they might consider deleting these last few posts?

pete

Nothing to see here. Move along, citizen.

eth0_

I fail to see what the problem is with the ad...it says surf 'anytime'. Anytime does not mean 'for as long as you want' it means you can access the net at any time of day as opposed to being restricted to off peak times only.

And 'surf as often as you want' is not equal to 'surf for as long as you want'.

It's been cleverly worded to entice the consumer, but I wouldn't call it misleading! If the ASAI upheld this they obviously have too much time on their hands (which they must do if they're sending out all those postcards heh)!

Do you guys report ads you don't like from any companies other than eircom and esat, as a matter of interest?

spongebob

Originally posted by eth0_
I fail to see what the problem is with the ad...it says surf 'anytime'. Anytime does not mean 'for as long as you want' it means you can access the net at any time of day as opposed to being restricted to off peak times only.

And 'surf as often as you want' is not equal to 'surf for as long as you want'.

It's been cleverly worded to entice the consumer, but I wouldn't call it misleading!

Anytime for €20 a Month Eth_0 .

M

eth0_

Originally posted by Muck
Anytime for €20 a Month Eth_0 .

M

Which it is...for the first few months? :P
Ok ok I get ye now. Maybe there was an extra pane for that ad clarifying that the 20 euro a month is an introductory offer, and the intarweb ate it!

gonker

Do you guys report ads you don't like from any companies other than eircom and esat, as a matter of interest?

Yes actually I do.
g

pete

Got a letter from the ASAI today saying they'd found against ESATBT wrt both press and internet advertising for IOL Anytime under sections 2.7, 2.21, 2.22 & 12.18 of the Code, and that the decision would be listed in their next bulletin.

Cerunnos

"It's been cleverly worded to entice the consumer, but I wouldn't call it misleading! "

indeed i wonder were the people who came up with this, tutoring Tony Blair before his appearance at the hutton enquiry.

the science of word usage.

sceptre

Originally posted by pete
Got a letter from the ASAI today saying they'd found against ESATBT wrt both press and internet advertising for IOL Anytime under sections 2.7, 2.21, 2.22 & 12.18 of the Code, and that the decision would be listed in their next bulletin.

No longer says "confidential" so here's a scan of the report