Docstoc

Advertising_Complaints_April_2001

Document Sample
Advertising_Complaints_April_2001 Powered By Docstoc
					         APRIL 2001
         EMBARGOED
         Not for use before 00.01 hours
         on Friday 08 June 2001




         Television


         Advertising


         Complaints




REPORT
How Television Advertising

is Controlled


The ITC is the statutory body created by the Broadcasting Act 1990
to licence and regulate commercial television in the UK. It remit
extends to all commercially funded television services broadcasting
from the UK, including satellite and cable services. The Act requires
the ITC to draw up and enforce a code on advertising standards and
practice. The ITC also has a duty under the Control of Misleading
Advertisements Regulations 1988 to consider complaints about
misleading television advertisements.

The ITC set standards for television advertising through its Code of
Advertising Standards and Practice. This is adopted and reviewed
after wide public consultation. The ITC also consults regularly with
the Government and has a duty to carry out any government
directions about categories of products and services which may or
may not be advertised. In addition, the ITC receives regular advice
on advertising standards from an external advisory committee
comprising representatives of both consumer and advertising
interests.

The ITC enforces compliance through a combination of prevetting
requirements and direct intervention. It requires the television
companies it licenses to employ trained staff to check advertising
carefully before accepting it for transmission. In particular they are
required to satisfy themselves that any claims are accurate and,
where appropriate, to inspect documentary evidence or seek the
advice of independent consultants. The majority of television
advertising is vetted by a central body called the Broadcast
Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) who act on behalf of a
number of ITC licensees collectively, including ITV, GMTV,
Channel 4, Channel 5, BSkyB and UK Gold. In practice, most
television advertising is submitted initially in script form and
clearance for film production is given only when the BACC, or the
individual company, is satisfied that there will be no breach of the
rules. Where there is doubt about interpretation of the rules the
television companies are encouraged to seek guidance from the ITC.
These procedures, which are more searching than those applicable to
any other advertising medium, ensure that the vast majority of
advertisements which appear on television do not breach the rules.
The ITC does, however, monitor the finished output closely and
where necessary intervenes to require non-complying advertising to
be withdrawn. A decision by ITC to suspend or discontinue an
advertisement has mandatory and immediate effect and there are
severe sanctions for non-compliance.

The ITC considers all complaints which it receives about advertising
and, where an investigation is necessary, requires the television
companies to submit background material to it promptly so that an
assessment may be made with a minimum of delay.                  All
complainants receive a personal reply to their complaint.
CONTENTS




       1   Complaints of Substance


       9   Summary of Other Complaints


      16   Analysis
Complaints

 of Substance


The following complaints appear to raise issues of substance in relation to the interpretation of
the Code of Advertising Standards and Practice.


             MISLEADING      ASTRAL SLOAN TELEPHONE - BID-UP.TV
                             Advertising agency: M & C Saatchi

         COMPLAINTS FROM     2 viewers

     NATURE OF COMPLAINT     During an advertising feature on Bid-up.tv an "Astral Sloan telephone" was
                             claimed to retail on the high street for around one hundred pounds. Viewers
                             complained that the advertising had been misleading because they had seen
                             the same telephone on the high street for less than thirty pounds.

              ASSESSMENT     Bid-up.tv stated that it had been unable to find the same telephone on the high
                             street and had therefore relied on retail price information provided by its
                             supplier. However, the "estimated price" quoted by the supplier related to a
                             different telephone to the one featured during the auction and this resulted in
                             the presenter claiming that it was worth more than its actual value. Bid-up.tv
                             said that it had reviewed its procedures in light of the complaints. The ITC
                             acknowledged the steps taken by the broadcaster, but judged that a misleading
                             price indication had been given that could have influenced viewers' decision
                             to purchase.

                  DECISION   Complaints upheld.




             MISLEADING      BUSCH GARDENS - CLOSE ENCOUNTER
                             Advertising agency: BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Ltd

          COMPLAINT FROM     1 viewer

     NATURE OF COMPLAINT     An advertisement for Busch Gardens, Tampa Bay, Florida claimed that
                             viewers could take their whole family on "our newest adventure - Rhino
                             Rally, the world's boldest off road safari river adventure". A viewer
                             complained that the advertising had been misleading because when he
                             travelled to Busch Gardens to experience the ride, he found that it was still
                             under construction and was not operational.

              ASSESSMENT     The ITC expects advertisements to make clear any significant condition
                             attached to the use or enjoyment of the advertised product. The BACC stated
                             that it had received confirmation that the ride was fully operational from BMP
                             DDB Ltd in March, prior to transmission of the commercial. The agency who
                             responded direct to the ITC on behalf of Busch Gardens, confirmed that
                                              1
                      Rhino Rally was not currently operational. It advised that the attraction had
                      been due to open in April 2001, but that unforeseen circumstances had led to
                      a delay. The agency said that it had only become aware of the problem when
                      the BACC passed on the details of the complaint. It apologised to the viewer
                      and offered to withdraw the commercial and alter it to reflect the anticipated
                      mid-May opening date. The ITC noted these proposals but nonetheless
                      regarded the advertising to have been misleading by not making clear that the
                      advertised attraction was not open to the public. It required further
                      transmission to cease in its current form.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld.



      MISLEADING      COI - ENERGY SAVING TRUST
                      Advertising agency: Saatchi & Saatchi Ltd

   COMPLAINTS FROM    3 viewers

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   An advertisement for the Energy Saving Trust claimed that viewers "could
                      get a grant towards energy efficient products like condensing boilers.."
                      Viewers complained that the advertising was misleading because the offer
                      was only open to those who wanted to convert to oil or liquid petroleum gas
                      boilers.

        ASSESSMENT    The ITC sought substantiation from the BACC who cleared the commercial
                      for broadcast on behalf of the advertiser. No comments were received so the
                      ITC exercised its powers under the Control of Misleading Advertising
                      Regulations and judged the advertising to have been misleading.

           DECISION   Complaints upheld.




      MISLEADING      ORBITREK - PIN 24


    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   The advertisement, for an exercise machine, claimed that the Orbitrek enabled
                      users to: "burn more calories than ... on a treadmill, [obtain] more efficient
                      butt toning action than [a] stairclimber, tone hips and thighs faster than on a
                      treadmill and tone ... arms and shoulders more than on a rider". It also
                      claimed that the machine was the "the newest, most advanced fitness
                      technology ever designed" and had a number of unique features e.g. a micro
                      adjustable resistance dial. The advertisement made frequent comparisons with
                      other types of fitness/exercise machines, without mentioning brand names. It
                      claimed that, unlike the Orbitrek, they could cause harm, especially through
                      impact injuries and that the arrival of the Orbitrek rendered them obsolete. A
                      number of these statements were accompanied by visuals of people
                      simulating discomfort or pain whilst using other types of fitness equipment.

                      A viewer queried the validity of the claims made.




                                       2
        ASSESSMENT    The licensee provided the ITC with substantiation that it believed supported
                      the claims made in the form of product trials, a consumer press product
                      review and a letter from a physiotherapist. It explained that in 1998 when the
                      product had been launched and the advertising feature produced, the Orbitrek
                      had indeed been unique in the ways claimed. It also stated that in its view, the
                      product continued to 'stand alone' in its field.

                      The ITC judged that the substantiation provided did not adequately support
                      the advertised claims. In particular, whilst the Orbitrek might have been
                      unique in certain respects when the commercial had been made, the evidence
                      provided did not show that it had remained so. At the time of broadcast there
                      were other machines on the market, offering the same or equivalent features
                      to some or all of those claimed to be unique to the Orbitrek. The ITC
                      therefore agreed that the advertisement had been misleading.

                      In addition, the ITC considered that that the advertising had made
                      unacceptable denigratory claims about competing exercise products and had
                      therefore breached Rule 27 of the ITC Code of Advertising Standards and
                      Practice, which states that "advertisements must not unfairly attack or
                      discredit other products or services, ... expressly or by implication".

                      The ITC instructed PIN 24 not to broadcast the feature again without
                      appropriate amendments.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld.



      MISLEADING      MEGA MEMORY – SHOP AMERICA



   COMPLAINTS FROM    8 viewers

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   During an advertising feature on Shop America, the channel's founder Kevin
                      Trudeau promoted Mega Memory, a set of instructional audio tapes which he
                      claimed would teach viewers to "release (their)…. super powered instant
                      recall memory" and would help students get "..straight A's with very little
                      study time". He claimed that anyone who had completed the course would be
                      able to " remember things better than ever before" and that Mega Memory
                      could "boost your earning potential…and self confidence". When asked if the
                      product could be used by anyone, Kevin Trudeau said "If you have kids of 10
                      years and above you owe it to them to get on the phone and get Mega
                      Memory…It is a revolutionary discovery in memory improvement that will
                      begin to release your own photographic instant recall memory". When the
                      presenter asked him how it worked Kevin Trudeau said, "I believe everyone
                      has a photographic memory. Other people don't but I certainly do"…he
                      assured viewers that "…Mega Memory guarantees that everyone watching
                      will be able to walk in to a room full of people, meet 30 - 40 new people and
                      be able to remember every persons name…you'll have an automatic increase
                      in your memory of 500% guaranteed." Viewers objected to these claims
                      because they considered them incapable of being proved.

        ASSESSMENT    The ITC requires licensee's to satisfy themselves that any descriptions, claims
                      or illustrations have been adequately substantiated before accepting
                      advertisements for broadcast. Shop America submitted an Efficacy Report on
                      Mega Memory, but the ITC did not consider that the report had substantiated
                      the claims that had been made in the advertisement. The ITC found no
                      evidence to support the claims that Mega Memory could "automatically
                                       3
                      increase your memory by 500%, guaranteed"; that everyone who followed the
                      programme could walk in to a room and remember 30 - 40 people's names, or
                      that an individual's earning potential and self esteem would be boosted. The
                      ITC considered that the advertising was likely to have given viewers a
                      misleading impression of the efficacy of the product and therefore judged it to
                      have been misleading. It required Shop America to withdraw it from
                      broadcast. Shop America agreed to make changes to any future executions.

           DECISION   Complaints upheld.



      MISLEADING      RAMCOM COMPUTER - SHOP!



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   During an advertising feature on Shop! a Ramcom computer with numerous
                      applications including Via Voice (IBM) and 32Mb of memory was claimed to
                      be "very powerful". A viewer complained that he had been misled about
                      how powerful the computer was because when he tried to use the Via Voice
                      package, the computer became too slow.

        ASSESSMENT    The ITC learnt that 32Mb of memory was the minimum with which personal
                      computers appeared to be sold and that most computers were sold with a
                      significantly greater memory capacity. In order to use Via Voice another
                      package had to be in use simultaneously (for example, a word processing
                      package) and that, with each requiring 32Mb of memory in order to function
                      satisfactorily, a computer with half this memory capacity would suffer
                      impaired performance. Shop! told the ITC that it had sold a number of the
                      computers and that it had received no other complaints. It acknowledged that
                      computer specifications were constantly improving but said that when the
                      computer was sold in November 2000, it had regarded the memory to be
                      adequate. The ITC noted these comments but judged that the advertising had
                      misleadingly referred to the computer as being powerful when it had only
                      minimal memory capacity. It required Shop! to cease further transmissions of
                      the advertising in its current form.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld.



      MISLEADING      SIEMENS A35 CELLPHONE - SHOP!



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   During an advertisement on Shop! a presenter claimed that if the featured
                      Siemens A35 cellphone, on the Vodafone Pay-as-you-Talk network, remained
                      unused for 12 months the call credit would remain in-tact. A viewer
                      complained that the claim was misleading because Vodafone had advised him
                      that if a cellphone on their Pay-as-you-Talk network remained unused for 180
                      days it would be cut off.




                                       4
        ASSESSMENT    Shop! told the ITC that the presenter had miscommunicated the information
                      on the script and that the Vodafone wording had made it clear that "if you
                      choose not to use the service for a period of 180 days your number may be
                      disconnected". It said that the presenter had confused the featured telephone
                      with a similar offer from Orange, which did provide the 12-month non-use
                      call credit. The ITC accepted the explanation but nonetheless judged the
                      advertising to have been misleading.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld.




       OFFENSIVE      PAMPERS
                      Advertising agency: Saatchi & Saatchi Ltd

   COMPLAINTS FROM    125 viewers

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   An advertisement for Pampers Total Care claimed to be designed "to handle
                      pee but also soft poo.." Viewers complained that the use of these words was
                      offensive and that in some cases the graphics used to illustrate the substances
                      being absorbed in to the nappy, had put them off their food.

        ASSESSMENT    The ITC considered the words used to be the mildest descriptions of normal
                      bodily functions, in common parlance amongst mothers, and not likely to
                      cause real offence. In its view the graphics were innocuous and, considered
                      that the commercial did not warrant any transmission restriction.

           DECISION   Complaints not upheld.




       OFFENSIVE      SCHEDULING



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   An advertisement for the British Heart foundation, which showed a man
                      collapsing with apparent chest pains was shown on Living during Barney and
                      Friends. The viewer felt that the images used in this advertisement were
                      inappropriate during programmes aimed specifically at young children.

        ASSESSMENT    Flextech who schedule the airtime sales for Living explained that the
                      advertisement had not been cleared until late in the day prior to transmission.
                      This late clearance, together with some technical problems, resulted in the
                      final clearance omitting to mention the BACC restriction that the advert was
                      not to be transmitted adjacent to children's programmes. Flextech amended
                      their schedules as soon as they became aware that there was a restriction and
                      apologised for the error and any offence caused.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld.




                                       5
         HARMFUL      HEWLETT PACKARD – SNOWBALLS
                      Advertising agency: Publicis

   COMPLAINTS FROM    94 viewers

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   The commercial featured a Hewlett Packard 'inventor' promoting the benefits
                      of a mobile phone service he had designed that enabled users in Finland to
                      predict when trams would arrive, so as to avoid having to wait outside for
                      them in the cold. A group of children were shown using the service to predict
                      the arrival of a tram. They were then seen joining a large crowd of other
                      children, which converged on the tram, pelting it with snowballs.

                      Viewers claimed that the advertisement was irresponsible and could
                      encourage children and teenagers to throw objects at passing vehicles and in
                      particular trams, trains and/or buses, and to believe that such behaviour was
                      acceptable, harmless fun. Complaints were received from a number of
                      national transport organisations including the Transport and General Workers
                      Union and the Confederation of Passenger Transport. They stated that
                      transport authorities were facing a constant problem with children and
                      teenagers throwing things at public transport, causing damage and possible
                      serious injury. Complaints were also received from bus and train drivers who
                      had experienced having missiles thrown at their vehicles. A number of
                      complainants also mentioned that in their areas there were serious problems
                      with children and teenagers attacking transport.

        ASSESSMENT    The BACC explained that it had advised the advertiser to ensure that no
                      dangerous behaviour was shown. They pointed out that the children were not
                      seen straying into the road. In their view, the mood of the commercial had
                      been light-hearted, with the tram driver and passengers expecting the barrage
                      of snowballs as part of a local game. The advertiser stated that it had carried
                      out research before running the commercial and had not received any adverse
                      comments from viewers. It argued that the advertisement simply depicted
                      ordinary young children having playful fun on a snowy day. The
                      advertisement was subsequently withdrawn by the advertiser after allegations
                      that attacks on trams, buses and trains had risen in some areas following the
                      showing of the commercial.

                      The ITC noted the comments of the BACC and the advertiser but judged that
                      whilst the risk of specific emulation of what was shown may have been small,
                      it considered the advertisement did condone antisocial and potentially
                      dangerous behaviour. Whilst welcoming the decision of the advertiser to
                      withdraw the commercial, it confirmed that the advertisement should not be
                      shown again.

           DECISION   Complaints upheld.




                                       6
 MISCELLANEOUS        SCHEDULING - ACTOR SEPARATION



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   On 6 December on UK Gold an advertisement for W.H.Smith featuring
                      Nicholas Lyndhurst was shown during the programme Goodnight Sweetheart
                      which also featured him. A viewer queried whether this was a breach of ITC
                      rules.

        ASSESSMENT    ITC rules require that a clear distinction is made between programmes and
                      advertisements. To minimise any risk of confusion, advertisements featuring
                      an artist must not be scheduled in breaks in or adjacent to a programme in
                      which they also appear. Flextech, who schedule advertising airtime for UK
                      Gold, apologised for the error.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld. There was no evidence that this was other than an isolated
                      incident, so the ITC judged that no further regulatory action was indicated on
                      this occasion.



 MISCELLANEOUS        SCHEDULING - ACTOR SEPARATION



   COMPLAINTS FROM    2 viewers

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   2 viewers objected to an advertisement for Direct Line home insurance
                      featuring Edward Peel being shown during two episodes of London's Burning
                      on the 28 January on Westcountry and 4 February on Central. Edward Peel
                      appeared in both the programme and advertisement.

        ASSESSMENT    Carlton who schedule the advertising on behalf of both broadcasters,
                      explained that these errors occurred at a time when changes were being made
                      to staff and computer systems in order to handle additional television
                      channels. Carlton apologised for the errors and expressed confidence that the
                      remedial action taken had closed the loophole.

           DECISION   Complaints upheld.



 MISCELLANEOUS        SCHEDULING – ACTOR SEPARATION



   COMPLAINTS FROM    3 viewers

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   On the 23 January an advertisement for TV Times magazine featuring Simon
                      Shepherd was shown on HTV and Scottish, during the programme "Peak
                      Practice" in which the actor appeared. The complainants queried whether this
                      was in breach of ITC rules.




                                       7
ASSESSMENT   ITC rules require that a clear distinction is made between programmes and
             advertisements. To minimise any risk of confusion, advertisements featuring
             an artist must not be scheduled in breaks in or adjacent to a programme in
             which they also appear. Carlton apologised for the error.

  DECISION   Complaints upheld.




                             8
                Summary of

                Other Complaints


             Advertisements for the products or services listed below attracted
             complaints which after preliminary assessment, did not raise issues of
             substance requiring further investigation.

             These included complaints repeating points already considered and
             covered in previous summaries, as well as isolated expressions of
             personal opinion or experience which did not call into question the
             conformity of the advertisements with the requirements of the ITC
             Code of Advertising Standards and Practice.




             Product or Advertisement                                   Number of
                                                                        Complaints
MISLEADING   AA Membership                                                       1
             Abbey National                                                       1
             Adidas                                                               1
             AOL - Flat Rate                                                      3
             AOL Internet - 50 hour free trial                                    4
             Baines & Ernst                                                       3
             Barclaycard                                                          1
             Barclaycard - Indigo Square                                          1
             Benecol                                                              2
             Bid-up.tv                                                            1
             British Airways - Text                                               1
             British Gas                                                          1
             British Telecom - Internet                                           1
             British Telecom - Talk Together                                      1
             BT Internet - Anytime                                                1
             Cahoot.com - 5% reduction                                            1
             Charcol Mortgages                                                    1
             Claimline                                                            1
             Claims Direct                                                        1
             Claims Direct - Carl                                                 1
             Claims Direct - Declan                                               1
                                      9
Clairol Herbal Essences                   1
Comet                                     1
Danone Activ                              1
De Agostini - Art Course                  1
Digital Cellphones                        1
Direct Car Finance                        1
Direct Line Motor Insurance               5
Fairy Liquid                              1
Flora                                     2
Garden Claw                               1
Gillette Venus                            1
Glade Airfreshner                         1
Greatest Hits of the 80's                 1
Greenland Interactive Ringtone - Text     1
Halifax Building Society - Matt           2
Harvester Restaurants                     1
Ideal World Home Shopping product         1
Imodium Plus                              1
Imperial Leather Foamburst                1
ITV2 Promotions                           3
Kitchens Direct                           1
Mail on Sunday                            1
Mars Milky Way                            1
Maybelline Watershine Lip Colour          1
McDonalds - Goldrush                      2
Moben Kitchens                            1
National Westminster Bank                 1
National Westminster Bank – Another Way   4
Nivea                                     1
Norton Finance                            1
NTL Technology                            1
Olivio                                    1
Open Product                              1
Pampers                                   1
Payless Travel Ltd - Text                 1
PC World                                  1
Readers Digest                            1
Red Bull                                  1
Regency Mortgage                          1

                            10
            Ronseal                                          4
            Royal Mail                                       1
            Royal Mail - Special Delivery                    2
            Saga Motor Insurance                             1
            Scottish Widows                                  1
            Shoe Tailor                                      1
            Shop! Product                                    1
            Sky Trailers/Promotions                          2
            SMA Progress Follow-On Formula                   2
            Specsavers - Better Vision                       1
            St Helens Glass                                  1
            Sun Master Travel - Text                         1
            Telewest Cable Television                        1
            The Harley Medical Group                         1
            Thomas Cook Direct - Text                        1
            Tiger Claims                                     3
            Time Life - The Art of Woodwork                  1
            Time Life Video - Mash                           1
            Toycity.com                                      1
            Turkish Tourist Office                           1
            TV Travel Shop                                   1
            Warm Front Team                                  1
            Yes Express Car Credit                           1




            Product or Advertisement                 Number of
                                                     Complaints
OFFENSIVE   AA Insurance Online - couple                      4
            Ariel                                           11
            Association of Investment Trusts                 2
            Barclaycard                                      1
            Batchelors Super Noodles - Shirt                 1
            Batchelors Super Noodles – Wasted Away           1
            Bid-up.tv                                        1
            Bingo                                            2
            Boss Woman                                       1
            Brantano Shoes - Italian Fight                   3
            Cadbury's Double Decker                          1
            Christian Aid                                    1

                                     11
Claims Direct                       2
COI - Benefit Fraud                 8
COI - Electoral Registration        2
COI - New Deal 50+                  1
COI - New Deals                     1
Daewoo Cars                         1
Danone Activ                        1
Direct Line Motor Insurance         1
Dove Body Silk                      2
Egg - Kissing                      43
Film Trailer - Bridget Jones        1
First Direct Bank                   1
Ford Focus                          1
Formula One Magazine               21
Halifax Building Society            1
Halifax Current Account - Howard    1
Heat Magazine                       1
Herald                             17
Ikea - Swedish Mafia               35
Imperial Cancer Research           19
Imperial Leather Foamburst          1
L'Oreal Age Perfect                 1
Levis Engineered Jeans - Twist      1
Lycos                               1
Matalan                             1
McCain Oven Chips                   1
Monster.co.uk                       5
Mr Kipling Cakes                   10
Mr Muscle                           1
National Westminster Bank           8
Nivea                               1
NPower                              1
Otex Eardrops                       1
Pampers                             2
Peugeot 206 - Medical               1
Pledge Dust & Go                    1
Pot Noodles - Tongue Tied           2
Real Magazine                       1
Reebok - The Blob                   1

                        12
          Robinsons Drinks                       1
          Sky Trailers/Promotions                1
          So Good                                1
          Stella Artois                          1
          Sun Newspaper                         54
          Thomas Cook - Pregnant                12
          Volkswagen Polo - Whatever            12
          Whiskas Pouches - Welfare              1
          Whyte and Mackay Whisky                3
          Wrigleys Orbit                         4




          Product or Advertisement       Number of
                                         Complaints
HARMFUL   Butlins                                 1
          Cadburys Easter Hunt                   1
          Cif Cream                              1
          Claims Direct - Declan                 1
          Clearasil                              1
          COI - Benefit Fraud                    1
          COI - Electoral Registration           1
          Domestos Active Mousse                 3
          Harpic Powerfoam                       1
          Jaffa Cakes                            1
          John West Salmon - Getaway             1
          Kelloggs Cereal & Milk Bar             1
          Kelloggs Pokemon Cereal                1
          Kotex                                  1
          Mars Celebrations                      1
          McCain Oven Chips                      1
          McDonalds - corporate                  1
          Monster.co.uk                          1
          Mr Kipling Cakes                      11
          Norton Finance                         1
          Pampers                                2
          Pot Noodles - Tongue Tied              1
          Purple Loans                           1
          Rolo - Robinson Crusoe                21
          RSPCA - My Little Puppy               74

                                   13
                Sadolin Clean & Protect                  1
                SMA Progress Follow-On Formula           1
                Starburst - Car                          4
                The Harley Medical Group                 1
                Wrigleys Orbit                           3




                Product or Advertisement         Number of
                                                 Complaints
MISCELLANEOUS   Apple Computers                           3
                Cheltenham & Gloucester                  1
                Clairol Herbal Essences                  1
                COI - Environment                        1
                First Plus Financial Loans               1
                Grolsch                                  1
                Toymaster                                1
                Volvo                                    1




                                          14
          There were also complaints of a generic character referring to the following matters :-


                Product or Advertisement                                         Number of
                                                                                 Complaints
   MISLEADING   Debt Management Companies                                                 1
                Miscellaneous comments                                                      1




                Product or Advertisement                                         Number of
                                                                                 Complaints
    OFFENSIVE   Sanitary Protection Products                                              2
                Sex in advertising                                                          1




                Product or Advertisement                                         Number of
                                                                                 Complaints
     HARMFUL    Accident Claim Companies                                                  2
                Alcohol                                                                     1
                Debt Management Companies                                                   1
                General                                                                     1
                Sex in advertising                                                          1




                Product or Advertisement                                         Number of
                                                                                 Complaints
MISCELLANEOUS   Amount of Advertising                                                   17
                Debt Management Companies                                                   1
                Formula One                                                                 6
                Inappropriate Breaks                                                        1
                ITV minutage                                                               64
                Miscellaneous comments                                                      2
                Noise                                                                       1




                                        15
                   Analysis

                                                 COMPLAINTS DETERMINED IN APRIL 2001

                             Number of                  Number of                   Number of
                             Complaints             Advertisements        Advertisements about
                                                        referred to      which complaints were
                                                                            upheld wholly or in
                                                                                          part

   MISLEADING                  131     (5)                  64     (6)                   7      (0)

    OFFENSIVE                  449     (0)                  37     (0)                   1      (0)

     HARMFUL                   241     (0)                  19     (0)                   1      (0)

MISCELLANEOUS                  108     (0)                   7     (0)                   3      (0)

                               929     (6)                 127     (6)                  12      (0)




                                                                          YEAR TO DATE 2001

                             Number of                  Number of                   Number of
                             Complaints             Advertisements        Advertisements about
                                                        referred to      which complaints were
                                                                            upheld wholly or in
                                                                                          part

   MISLEADING                  689    (29)                 247    (30)                  40      (8)

    OFFENSIVE                 1227     (0)                 176     (0)                   3      (0)

     HARMFUL                   649     (0)                 109     (0)                   7      (0)

MISCELLANEOUS                  705     (4)                  46     (4)                   6      (0)

                              3270    (33)                 578    (34)                  56      (8)




                The numbers in brackets indicate Text advertisements. They are extracted from, not
                additional to, the overall numbers.




                                         16

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:11/16/2011
language:English
pages:19