NOVEMBER 2001
EMBARGOED Not for use before 00.01 hours on Monday 7 January 2002
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
8 17
Summary of Other Complaints 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
BT CELLNET Advertising agency: Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO 5 viewers The advertisement stated: "Now all BT Cellnet customers can use their mobiles abroad" and showed a man on a beach making a call to a friend at home in the UK and asking him to send him a text message. Superimposed text stated (amongst other things) "Some service restrictions may apply on Pay and Go". The complainants believed that the advertising was misleading as they had understood that they could use their phones abroad as normal but had found that whilst abroad they could not receive calls or send text messages.
COMPLAINTS FROM
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
ASSESSMENT
The advertiser explained that the advertisement had been designed to promote the use of its Pay and Go and Pay monthly packages by users abroad. It had intended to introduce a full range of international services from 1 July 2001. However, shortly before this date it had discovered that there were likely to be transmitter problems in some countries, lasting until August, resulting in some users on the Pay and Go platform not being able to receive calls or send text messages. As soon as it had become aware of the problem the advertiser added the text referring to "service restrictions" to the commercials. It argued that it was in any event correct to suggest that BT Cellnet customers could use their mobiles abroad. During the time the advertising had been on air all its customers had been able to use their phones in some capacity. The BACC stated that it believed the text used had been adequate to alert viewers to the fact that certain restrictions on use were currently in place. The ITC judged that viewers were likely to have understood the reference to being able to use their phones abroad as implying that they could make use of the main functions as normal and in particular would be able to make and receive calls and send and receive text messages. It did not accept that the "service restrictions" text had adequately alerted viewers to the nature and extent of those limitations. It therefore agreed that the advertising had been misleading and required that it not be re-shown in its current form.
DECISION
Complaints upheld.
MISLEADING
DIRECT CAR FINANCE - £1000 Advertising agency: Blair Fowles Advertising Ltd Staff Intervention The advertisement, for a car finance and sales company, stated: "they'll give you a minimum of £1,000 for your old car". Superimposed text stated: "on selected cars". Whilst investigating a viewer complaint, the ITC became concerned that the advertisement might be misleading due to a contradiction between the headline claim and the superimposed text. The advertiser explained that 98% of its car stock was covered by the part exchange offer. It believed that the text statement adequately alerted viewers to the limitation on the offer. The ITC judged that the text statement in fact contradicted the headline claim and that the advertisement was therefore misleading. Superimposed text may be used to expand or clarify an offer or to make minor qualifications or resolve minor ambiguities. However, superimposed text that directly contradicts a claim made elsewhere in the advertisement is not acceptable. The ITC therefore required that the commercial not be re-shown in its present form.
COMPLAINT FROM
ASSESSMENT
MISLEADING
IDEAL WORLD HOME SHOPPING
COMPLAINT FROM
1 viewer Ideal World Home Shopping featured a "Cell Plus" electromagnetic wave reduction device for mobile phones during its "Gifts and Gadgets" slot on 23 October. A viewer complained that 1) the advertising was misleading and played on viewer fear by giving a distorted impression of the unproven health fears surrounding the effect radiation emissions could have on mobile phone users, and 2) that during a demonstration, an electromagnetic tester was used to indicate radiation emissions from mobile phones, and that it was misleading to refer to "milligauss" - the measurement of the strength of a electromagnetic field - in the context of advertising the product because it was not used in an "official measurement". With regard to the first complaint Ideal World said "There has been a lot of media coverage about the potential risks from the radiation emitted by mobile phones. Dennice Robertson did mention some of these, but every time she did, she made it quite clear that it was yet unproven. She also emphasises that although there have been several reports and articles, that none of them have come up with any conclusive evidence either way". The ITC judged that, although an attempt had been made to balance the promotion of the product with the unproven effects of radiation, various statements were capable of misleading viewers and unjustifiably playing on fear, for example: "..you imagine in a couple of years' time when the results of the report actually say that radio frequency radiation is harmful to you..you think then of all of the law cases that are going to happen, all the people that could have suffered";
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
ASSESSMENT
"..think about your sons and daughters and your grandchildren. Are you prepared to take that risk on their behalf?" and "I am not prepared to wait. Look at this headline 'mobile telephones in new brain tumour alert' it doesn't bear thinking about…who would wait…I am not prepared to take that risk". This part of the complaint was upheld. With regard to the second complaint, Ideal World told the ITC that the demonstration using the "milligauss" test was quite clearly stated not to be a scientific test and was merely a demonstration to show the reduction in radiation using "Cell Plus". It said "During the transmission an Electromagnetic Charge Tester was used to indicate the leakage of radiation from mobile phones and how Cell-Plus limits this effect…it was the easiest way to pick up the electromagnetic field, whose strength is measured in milligauss. It was pointed out that this was not a scientific demonstration, purely an indication of the effectiveness of Cell-Plus." The ITC noted that the presenter had made clear that the test was not scientific. Complaint not upheld.
DECISION
Complaint upheld in part.
MISLEADING
IDEAL WORLD HOME SHOPPING
COMPLAINT FROM
2 viewers A "Pick of the Day" launch on Ideal World Home Shopping featured a "Zhuzh" dress. The presenter, Steve Whatley, talked on a number of occasions about the dress being the first ever of his own design. Viewers complained that the feature was misleading because, although it gave the impression that he designed the dress himself, it had originally been an unwanted retail outlet sample. The ITC had initially dismissed complaints after receiving assurances from Ideal World about the origins of the dress. However, on receipt of a further viewer complaint, and after assessing the advertising, the ITC again took the matter up with Ideal World. At this point Ideal World told the ITC that although there had been no intention to mislead, on reflection, "it would be fair to say that the impression the viewer would get is that he, Steve, sat down with a designer and physically drew the original design." Whilst the ITC was prepared to accept that there was no deliberate intention to mislead viewers, it nonetheless judged that the way in which the dress had been described in the live presentation could have given viewers a misleading impression of its origins. It therefore warned Ideal World of the need to consider carefully every claim, illustration and description of its products and to clarify on air, any ambiguities which may occur as a result of presenters "getting carried away" with the products they are promoting.
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
ASSESSMENT
DECISION
Complaints upheld.
3
MISLEADING
THE PREVIEW CHANNEL
COMPLAINT FROM
1 viewer An advertisement for the Orbitrek home exercise machine stated that it cost £149.95 plus £9.95 postage and packaging. A viewer complained that the advertising was misleading as he had been charged £14.95 for postage and packaging.
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
ASSESSMENT
The advertiser, TV Shop, confirmed that the correct amount for postage and packaging at the time the complainant saw the commercial was £14.95. The broadcaster, The Preview Channel, stated that it had checked the details of the advertising at the time it had originally been put on air, in August 1998. It had not, however, been told by TV Shop that the price for postage and packaging had subsequently increased from £9.95 to £14.95 and as a result the original advertisement, featuring a now incorrect price, had remained on air. It had removed the commercial as soon as it had been notified of the complaint. The ITC noted the events that had led to the wrong price appearing on air and the steps taken on receiving the complaint. It was, however concerned that although it had checked that the details of postage and packaging were correct at the time the commercial went on air, the channel had not then taken steps to contact the advertiser to ensure, given the length of time the advertising had been on air, that these details remained up to date. ITC reminded the channel that all ITC licence holders are required to ensure that any advertising they transmit complies with its codes at all times. It judged that the advertising had been misleading and required that it not be re-shown in its current form.
DECISION
Complaint upheld.
MISLEADING
QVC – DIAMOND NEEDLE FILE SET
COMPLAINT FROM
1 viewer Advertising for this DIY product featured a guest presenter referring to an unidentified price list from another supplier and stating that the products on the list, which were substantially more expensive, were: "very very similar" to the ones being offered by QVC. The complainant, who was able to identify the brochure shown, believed that the comparison made in the commercial was misleading. The products on the list shown differed in both form and function from those advertised, being much more substantial tools than the files being offered by QVC. He also objected to the fact that the competing products were not identified.
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
4
ASSESSMENT
QVC stated that it had not intended to make a direct comparison between the two types of product. It argued that it had not claimed that the QVC product was identical, equivalent or superior to the other products mentioned. The intended viewer understanding was only that it was possible to pay "a lot more for similar but not comparable" items. The product literature referred to in the advertisement had not been shown to viewers in detail precisely because no comparison was intended. The ITC judged that viewers were likely to assume from the statements made in the presentation that the products on the list referred to were being directly compared to those available from QVC. It considered that the advertisement breached its rule on comparative advertising by giving an arbitrary comparison between clearly identified goods being sold by QVC and unidentified, possibly different, goods on sale elsewhere. Such a comparison did not give viewers sufficient information on which to base an accurate assessment of the worth of the goods being sold through QVC relative to those suggested as being comparators. It therefore considered the advertising to have been misleading.
DECISION
Complaint upheld.
OFFENSIVE
WH SMITH - BIG DEAL Advertising agency: Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO 129 viewers Four commercials featured a slim, well dressed, "snobbish" couple from the South East visiting hugely overweight relatives in Newcastle whom they regarded as unsophisticated. Nicholas Lyndhurst played all the roles, with padding and prosthetics being used to bulk him up to play the obese "Geordies". In one of the advertisements, the overweight couple were sitting on their sofa but repeatedly heaving themselves forward. One of the visitors asked if this was a new dance but was told that, no, their hosts were just trying to stand up. The complainants objected to what they saw as patronising or harmful stereotyping of either people from Newcastle or of overweight people generally. The "sofa" commercial in particular attracted the latter criticism.
COMPLAINTS FROM
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
ASSESSMENT
The ITC judged that the exaggerated and fictitious "Geordie" stereotype was within the bounds of acceptable humour and was unlikely to cause widespread offence amongst people from Newcastle. Equally, it was thought unlikely to harm their reputation or result in, for example, the mocking of Newcastle-born children living elsewhere. The stereotyping of obese people was a much more borderline issue because those who are overweight can experience discrimination and mockery, particularly as children. On balance, however, the ITC concluded that the exaggerated, "pantomime" nature of the overweight characters was likely to be just sufficient to reduce the risk of distress or harm in this particular case.
DECISION
Complaints not upheld.
5
HARMFUL
ARMANI JEANS Advertising agency: Armani Press 1 viewer An advertisement for Armani Jeans featured two young attractive couples "messing around" on railway tracks. The visuals included shots of moving and stationary train carriages. Railway Safety, an organisation which aims to focus the industry on improved safety management (and a subsidiary of Railtrack), complained that "the behaviour shown..is extremely inappropriate and indeed sends the wrong message to the viewing public..". It added, "the railway industry has spent millions of pounds on campaigns in a bid to educate the public on the dangers of trespassing on the railways and/or committing acts of vandalism. Advertisements of this nature are counter productive to unfortunately very necessary work the industry has done thus far to address these issues." The BACC advised that the commercial had not been transmitted since 11 November, that there were no plans to show it again and that it had only been broadcast on MTV. It had imposed a restriction keeping the commercial off children's channels and away from programmes which it would be reasonable to expect them to be able to watch unsupervised, in respect of a brief partialnudity scene. However, BACC did not consider the railway setting problematic in the context of the advertisement. Rule 20 of the ITC Advertising Code states that no advertisement may encourage or condone behaviour prejudicial to health and safety. Rule 11 of Appendix 1 to the Code warns that from the point of view of safety: "It should be borne in mind that in some circumstances bad examples set by adults may also encourage dangerous emulation." The ITC judged the overall impression of the advertisement to be that the young, carefree couples were safe, happy and having fun oblivious to the potential dangers of their surroundings and considered it possible for youngsters to be attracted to the imagery. It therefore found the advertisement to be in breach of the Code and ordered that it must not re-appear.
COMPLAINT FROM
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
ASSESSMENT
DECISION
Complaint upheld.
MISCELLANEOUS
PROGRAMME PROMOTIONS/TRAILERS
COMPLAINT FROM
1 viewer A Fox Kids Network trailer for Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue claimed that Fox Kids would broadcast "every episode" in a weekend special (1 and 2 September 2001). A viewer complained (on 29 August) that the trailer was misleading because Fox Kids "have no intention of airing episode 9". He told the ITC that when he checked Fox Kids' electronic programme guide (EPG), episode 9 was not listed.
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
6
ASSESSMENT
Fox Kids queried whether the trailer counted as advertising for the purposes of the Advertising Code. The ITC confirmed that one of the general principles of the Advertising Code was that "…the standards of the Code apply to any item of publicity inserted in breaks in or between programmes, whether for payment or not, including publicity by the licensees themselves, and the term 'advertisement' is to be so construed for the purposes of this Code." Fox Kids confirmed that it did not broadcast episode 9. It said that "…an editorial decision had been made deeming the episode inappropriate for broadcast" and that poor communication between the scheduling and promotion departments led to the trailer being broadcast in spite of this decision. The ITC accepted Fox Kids' apology for the error and acknowledged that there had been no intention to mislead. Nonetheless it judged that the trailer had misleadingly claimed that "every episode" would be shown when there had no longer been any intention to do so.
DECISION
Complaint upheld.
MISCELLANEOUS
SEPARATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS
COMPLAINT FROM
1 viewer On 30 October, Cartoon Network showed an advertisement for ITV Digital's Select Film Choice featuring "What Lies Beneath". A viewer was concerned about the advertisement's suitability for broadcast on the Cartoon Network. ITC rules require films or videos that carry a 15 or 18 certificate not to be advertised in or adjacent to children's programmes or programmes directed principally at, or likely to appeal, to audiences below the age of 18. Cartoon Network explained that when it previewed this advertisement for unsuitable violence or sexual activity (which it did not contain) it omitted to consider specifically our rules on 15 and 18 certificated films. It apologised for the error. Complaint upheld. The ITC judged the breach to have been an isolated incident and took no further action.
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
ASSESSMENT
DECISION
7
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
MISLEADING
AA Motor Insurance Adult Channel AOL - 100 hour free trial AOL Internet - 50 hour free trial Argos Ariel B4U TV Baines & Ernst Bid-up.tv Bid-up.tv product BP Cleaner Fuel Bradford & Bingley British Gas British Telecom - Answer 1571 British Telecom - Internet BT Cellnet - Snorkel BT Internet - Anytime 2 Budweiser BUPA Burger King Choice Air - Teletext Clearasil
Number of Complaints 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 6 1 1 1
8
COI - Business Link Courts Furnishings Cruise Club UK - Teletext Crystal Travel - Teletext CS Lounge Suites Currys Daily Mirror Debtbusters DFS Direct Car Finance - £1000 Direct Line Motor Insurance E4 Euro - Eurosport Eurostar - Couple Offer Film - Moulin Rouge Finish Powerball First Plus Financial Loans Full Marks Mousse Halifax Current Account Harry Potter Computer Game Hidden Hearing Ideal World Home Shopping Intelligent Finance Interactive Talking Thomas International Technology Exchange ITV Digital Promotions ITV Sport ITV2 Promotions JML Drill Set Kelloggs Cereal & Milk Bar LG Intellowasher Littlewoods - Shopping Lloyds Pharmacy Mars Milky Way Matalan MaxiVision - Laser Eye Treatment McDonalds - 2x cheeseburgers McDonalds - Atlantis McDonalds - Big Bag
1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 1
9
McDonalds - Happy Meal Microsoft Windows XP Moben Kitchens More Th>n - Royal Sun Alliance Music- Britney Spears National Accident Helpline National Westminster Bank Nationwide NPower NTL - Broadband Cable Nurofen For Children Ocean Finance One 2 One - Everyone 100 Oxi Clean - Stain Remover PC World Pedigree Chum Portland Direct - Teletext Post Office - Cashing Cheques Post Office - Stelios Premiership Rugby - Zurich QVC Product Real Robots Red Bull Red Hot Euro Royal Mail RSPCA Scottish Executive Screwfix Direct Catalogue Seven Seas Shell Optimax Shop America Sky Digital Sky Digital - Courtroom SlimFast Stella Artois The Accident Group - 2nd Aid The Compensation Helpline Time Life - Custom Woodworking Time Life - Rock & Roll
2 3 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 6 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 3 1 1 2
10
Time Life - The Art of Woodwork Travel House - Teletext Tropicana - Pure Premium TV Licensing TV Travel Shop UBS Vaporetta Vauxhall Corsa Video Release - Cats & Dogs Virgin Trains - Shuttle Vision Express Walkers Crisps Weetabix Crunch Woolworths - Westlife CD Yano Yes Express Car Credit
2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Product or Advertisement
OFFENSIVE
Action Man - Ultra Bike Alliance & Leicester Andrex Arcadia II Baby Wee Wee Doll Batchelors Cup a Soup Batchelors Super Noodles BMW Mini British Gas British Telecom - Answer 1571 British Telecom - Weekend Special BT Entertainment BUPA Cadbury's Snowflake Carling Black Label Charmin Toilet Tissue Clarks COI - Benefit Fraud COI - Disability Awareness
Number of Complaints 1 1 2 2 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 7 1 2 15 1
11
COI - Literacy & Reading Daz Dyelock Plus Daz Ultra DFS - The Look of Love DFS - Whip Diamond Car Insurance Egg Card Energy Efficiency - Bad Boiler Esure - Careless Driver Film Trailer - Dracula 2001 Ford Mondeo Freeserve Gillette Mach 3 Glade Touch n Fresh Guinness Draught Harvester Head & Shoulders IBM ITV Digital ITV Digital Sport - Never Told JML Classic Pen Set Johnson & Johnson Baby Wipes Kit Kat Laboratoires Garnier Lynx Marks & Spencer Matalan McCain Mega Microchips McDonalds - 2 for 1 McDonalds - 2x cheeseburgers Mecca Bingo Mr Kipling Cakes Muller Corners Nescafe Original Nicorette Nike Footlocker Nivea Orange Ovaltine
1 5 1 1 6 1 1 5 4 1 2 24 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 2 1 1 1 1
12
Panadol Actifast Persil - Hotpoint Persil Non bio Peugeot 406 Playboy Channel Quaker Scott's Porridge Oats Red Bull Rover MG Saloons Sainsbury's - Bangers Sandals - new text Scottish Executive Sky Digital Smirnoff Ice Smirnoff Red Soft & Gentle Sony Playstation 2 Sunny Delight Surf The Accident Group - 2nd Aid Thorntons Chocolates Time Life Music- Power of Love Video/DVD Release - Bridget Jones Virgin Mobile - Photocopier Vodafone Vogue Archibalds Volkswagen Lupo Walkers Crisps Weetabix WH Smith - Big Deal Whyte and Mackay Whisky
4 7 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 8 1 2 19 1 1 1 1
Product or Advertisement
HARMFUL
Batchelors Cup a Soup Batchelors Super Noodles Berchet Moulinex Kitchen Bernard Matthews BP Cleaner Fuel
Number of Complaints 22 1 1 1 1
13
Calvin Klein Cosmetics Carlsberg Chicco Mini Doll Daz Ultra Energy Efficiency - Bad Boiler FedEx – Pizza to go Ferrero Rocher - Alter Ego Ford Mondeo Head & Shoulders JML Classic Pen Set Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder Kit Kat Mars Celebrations McCains Wedges McDonalds - Happy Meal Micro Machines - Attack Helicopter Microsoft Windows XP Miller Genuine Draft Norton Finance One 2 One - Everyone 100 Pizza Hut Polaroid I-Zone RSPCA – My Little Puppy Sainsbury's - Bangers Smirnoff Red Tesco Finest - Baked Beans TV Licensing Vauxhall Zafira Video/DVD League of Gentleman Video/DVD The Mummy Returns Woolworths Wrangler Jeans
1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1
Product or Advertisement
MISCELLANEOUS
Bid-up.tv product BT Genie Fiat Punto
Number of Complaints 1 1 1
14
Flora Pro Active Haagen Dazs Heat Magazine Imperial Cancer Research Kelloggs Littlewoods Macleans Ice Whitening Gel McDonalds - Atlantis Miscellaneous Ocean Finance Oil of Ulay Peugeot 406 Renault Clio Rover MG Saloons RSPCA – My Little Puppy Safestyle UK Sandals Scheduling - Actor Separation Shell Tall Trees Club The God Channel Tia Maria Time Life Music -The 80s Collection Viasat – WTC appeal
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
15
There were also complaints of a generic character referring to the following matters :-
Product or Advertisement
MISLEADING
Accident Claim Companies Car Advertising
Number of Complaints 1 1
Product or Advertisement
OFFENSIVE
Ethnic Minorities General Miscellaneous comments Sex in advertising Unknown
Number of Complaints 1 1 1 4 1
Product or Advertisement
HARMFUL
Flashing images
Number of Complaints 1
Product or Advertisement
MISCELLANEOUS
Accident Claim Companies Adult chatlines Amount of Advertising Formula One General Home Shopping Miscellaneous comments Noise Separation of Advertisements Unknown
Number of Complaints 1 1 6 2 2 1 2 4 2 1
16
Analysis
COMPLAINTS DETERMINED IN NOVEMBER 2001
Number of Complaints
Number of Advertisements referred to
Number of Advertisements about which complaints were upheld wholly or in part
6 0 1 2 9 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
MISLEADING OFFENSIVE HARMFUL MISCELLANEOUS
203 367 80 53 703
(5) (0) (0) (0) (5)
119 94 39 39 291
(5) (0) (0) (0) (5)
YEAR TO DATE 2001
Number of Complaints
Number of Advertisements referred to
Number of Advertisements about which complaints were upheld wholly or in part
81 6 10 27 124 (14) (1) (0) (1) (16)
MISLEADING OFFENSIVE HARMFUL MISCELLANEOUS
1772 3117 1146 1046 7081
(90) (3) (1) (12) (106)
840 619 348 199 2006
(87) (3) (1) (12) (103)
The numbers in brackets indicate Text advertisements. They are extracted from, not additional to, the overall numbers.
17