Get documents about "ADVERTISING COMPLAINTS - MARCHAPRILMAY 2002
Document Sample
MARCH/APRIL/MAY 2002
EMBARGOED
Not for use before 00.01 hours
on Thursday 6 June 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
24 Summary of Other Complaints
41 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.
HARMFUL Alcohol
COMPLAINTS FROM 3 viewers
BACKGROUND On the 27 December on Channel 4 during the Royal Institute Christmas Lectures
several alcoholic drinks were advertised. 3 viewers felt that alcoholic products
should not have been shown during this programme.
ISSUE The viewers felt that alcoholic drinks should not have been shown during this
programme.
ASSESSMENT ITC rules on alcohol advertising apply not only to children's programmes but also
to those commissioned for, or directed at, or likely to particularly appeal to,
audiences below the age of 18. Channel 4 explained that they had analysed the
audience profile from the previous year's transmission, which had indicated that it
would not be of particular appeal to under 18+B39s. The ITC pointed out that
despite this the programme had a studio audience consisting primarily of 10 to 14s
and was included in their publication 'Science for Secondary Schools'. The ITC
therefore believed the programme had clear appeal to an audience below the age of
18. Channel 4 apologised for the breach of ITC rules.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld
1
HARMFUL Bassetts Soft & Chewy Vitamins
Bray Leino
COMPLAINTS FROM Staff investigation
BACKGROUND The advertisement for a vitamin supplement adopted the style of an animated
cartoon. Against a brightly coloured background a mother and children bounced
across the screen on space-hoppers to a jingle in the style of 'The sun has got his hat
on'. The lyrics, which extolled the virtues of the supplement, appeared on screen
and the space-hoppers bounced above the words of the song as they appeared on
the screen.
ISSUE Whilst investigating two viewer complaints (which were not upheld), the ITC
became concerned that the commercial appeared to breach its scheduling rules in
relation to children.
ASSESSMENT Rule 9(b) of Appendix 1 of the Advertising Code requires that advertisements for
medicines, vitamins or other dietary supplements should only be shown after 9pm if
the advertising is in a style likely to appeal particularly to children. The ITC noted
that the advertisement carried a restriction preventing it from being shown in or
around programmes made specifically for children. The BACC did not consider a
post 9pm restriction to be necessary. It argued that the commercial simply showed
animated images of a family and was designed to illustrate the various groups that
might benefit from vitamin supplements. In its view, the upbeat colourful animation
techniques used were of general appeal to viewers rather than of particular appeal
to children. The ITC accepted that not all forms of cartoon animation are
necessarily attractive to children. However, it considered that the combination of
the bright, colourful animation techniques, a jingle in a style similar to children's
songs and use of the space-hoppers in learning technique, caused the advertisement
as a whole to be likely to be of particular appeal to children. The ITC stressed that
the problem lay with the way that the elements combined in this particular
advertisement, and that it did not necessarily follow that other similar executions
would have a similar appeal to children. It required that the advertisement should
not return to air without a post 9pm restriction.
CONCLUSION Staff intervention
HARMFUL Sainsburys
Abbot Mead Vickers
COMPLAINTS FROM 11 viewers
BACKGROUND An advertisement for Sainsbury's Oriental range of prepared meals featured Jamie
Oliver speaking Cantonese. He acted out Kung Fu-style moves as he cooked for
friends. The advertisement was subtitled to translate the spoken Cantonese.
2
ISSUE Viewers including some members of the Chinese community complained that the
advertisement was offensive. They felt it negatively stereotyped Chinese people
and their culture by suggesting that they all ate sweet and sour pork and practised
Kung Fu. Jamie Oliver's attempt at speaking Cantonese was particularly criticised,
one viewer said that "it came across as nothing better than what I often heard as
taunts in the school playground".
ASSESSMENT The advertiser said it had intended to celebrate Oriental cuisine and culture in a
positive way and was concerned that some viewers felt the advertisement
reinforced negative racial stereotypes. It explained that a Cantonese translator and
language coach were used throughout the making of the advertisement to ensure
that subtitles and Jamie Oliver's pronunciation were accurate and authentic.
The BACC did not believe that the "Kung Fu" scenes presented a negative
stereotype of the Chinese community. It argued that it was intended as a tribute to
films such as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Although it acknowledged that
Chinese culture was diverse, BACC felt it was acceptable for an advertisement to
reflect this one aspect of the culture provided that it was not presented in a way that
could be seen as patronising or demeaning.
The ITC recognises that some stereotypes can be insulting to groups in question
and that care is always needed not to condone or perpetuate prejudice. It therefore
asked the hosts of two Chinese community internet discussion groups (which had
debated the commercial) for their views. The hosts told the ITC that the use of
genuine Cantonese speech went a long way to counter any potential for offence
because it showed that the advertiser had thought carefully about how the theme of
the advertisement was presented.
The ITC understood how some might have found the advertisement objectionable.
However, there had been no intention to mock and the ITC agreed that martial arts
films were a significant part of Chinese culture and this advertisement had not
depicted the culture or people in a negative light. It noted that the advertiser's
employment of a language coach and translator had been recognised by those who
had debated it via the internet discussion group to have been a commitment to
ensuring that their language was accurately spoken.
CONCLUSION Complaints not upheld.
MISLEADING Auctionworld
COMPLAINTS FROM 225 viewers
BACKGROUND Auctionworld launched as an auction channel in November 2001.
ISSUE From launch the ITC took an unprecedented number of complaints from 250
viewers. The vast majority were received between December and late March and
related to problems experienced in the first couple of months of business. Viewers
told the ITC that Auctionworld's advertising was misleading because advertised
delivery promises were not being met – goods arrived late or in some cases not at
all. Viewers also complained that it was extremely difficult to contact anyone at
the channel to discuss problems with orders because the customer call centre
telephone numbers were very often engaged.
3
Through routine monitoring, ITC staff also noted that on-screen price captions were
at variance with the recommendations of the DTI Code of Practice for Traders. In
particular, Auctionworld's on-screen caption stated "SRP". The DTI Code provides
that the abbreviations "man.rec.price" and "R.R.P" should be used to describe
"manufacturer's retail price" and "recommended retail price" respectively and that
all other descriptions should be written out in full and shown clearly and
prominently with the price indication.
ASSESSMENT The ITC's Advertising Code requires that no advertisement may contain
descriptions, illustrations, or claims, which are likely to mislead. The Code also
provides that, in respect of mail order and direct response advertising, licensees
must satisfy themselves that adequate arrangements exist for enquiries to be
handled by a responsible person available during normal working hours.
In respect of price comparisons, Rule 25 of the Code states that price comparisons
must comply with all relevant statutory requirements (including the DTI Code).
Auctionworld informed the ITC that, since launch, it had experienced a number of
serious operational difficulties. It had not anticipated how successful it was likely
to be and had been overwhelmed by the level of sales. Consequently it found itself
unable to fulfil its advertised delivery promises or deal with the increasing number
of telephone enquiries from viewers querying their orders.
However, Auctionworld reported that by far the most significant obstacle was a
defect in its two computer systems. Communication broke down between the
system, which ran the auction software and accepted the orders and the other
system, which dealt with stock handling, invoicing, financial controls etc and
resulted in the loss of a number of customer orders. The problem only came to
light when customers who had not received goods at all began to complain and the
call centre were unable to locate their details on the computer systems. Initially,
the channel thought it was confined to the launch period. However, the fault
continued to affect the auctions broadcast throughout December.
The ITC maintained regular contact with Auctionworld; meeting with key staff on
two occasions to assess the effect of the remedial actions it had taken and proposed
to take. Auctionworld faced further setbacks when the computer defects took longer
than anticipated to resolve. However, it instigated the following changes in an
attempt to alleviate customer concern. It:
followed up delivery problems by contacting customers individually either by
letter of telephone,
appointed a new logistics manager,
appointed a customer service manager,
suspended on-air delivery claims,
dramatically increased the number of staff dealing with customer service both
in-house and at the outsourced call centre,
increased the number of staff 'picking and packing' goods for dispatch.
4
Within 48 hours of the ITC meeting with the channel in April, it commenced
broadcast of an explanation and apology to its customers for the difficulties and
inconvenience they had suffered since the launch of the channel. This information
was transmitted several times a day. Auctionworld also prepared a written
explanation and apology to be sent to each of the complainants who had contacted
the ITC and it supplied the ITC with an email address and the telephone numbers of
senior staff who would be able to deal with customer queries.
Over the course of the investigation the ITC closely monitored viewer reaction. It
found that in many cases concerns and queries related to the trading practice of the
channel, for example how it dealt with its customers, its ability to fulfil assurances
given over the telephone, and whether telephone calls were returned as agreed. It
was clear that there had been inadequate procedures in place to deal with customers
querying the whereabouts of their goods and that as such viewers became
increasingly concerned about the validity of Auctionworld's operations.
The ITC accepted that all companies had to cope on occasions with unforeseen
problems, and made due allowance for teething difficulties experienced in the
period immediately after launch. For that reason it did not uphold complaints
relating to delayed delivery for the period from launch to the end of December.
Neither did it uphold the complaints about poor customer service for the period
immediately after launch.
However, in spite of Auctionworld's inexperience and the problems to be
anticipated with the launch of a new channel, the ITC felt strongly that in respect of
the period when customers saw on screen delivery promises which were not
fulfilled, that the advertising had been misleading in terms of when viewers might
expect to receive what they had bought. This period covered complaints received
by the ITC between January and April.
All complaints relating to inadequate call handling arrangements from January
onwards were upheld. The ITC noted that since Auctionworld had begun
broadcasting the explanation and apology it had received very few complaints
relating to 'new orders' although it continued to receive viewer feedback on orders
placed up to mid-March.
When Auctionworld became aware of the breach of Rule 25 it amended the manner
in which it referred to price comparisons to bring it in to line statutory
requirements.
The ITC informed Auctionworld that it had narrowly avoided formal sanctions on
this occasion. The ITC would continue to monitor viewer feedback, and advised
that any repetition of the serious failures which had given rise to the unprecedented
number of complaints from dissatisfied viewers would lead the ITC to consider
regulatory action such as a financial penalty.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld in part and staff intervention.
5
MISLEADING Currys
M & C Saatchi
COMPLAINTS FROM 3 viewers
BACKGROUND An advertisement for Currys showed a lady taking delivery of a new television set
whilst her husband slept in front of the old one. A line of Currys delivery vehicles
appeared with the voiceover "at Currys, we deliver seven days a week, even on a
Sunday". In the final scene, the woman and delivery men admired the newly
installed television. One of the men asked if they could take "the old thing away".
The woman assumed he was talking about her husband.
ISSUE Viewers objected to the advertisement on the grounds that it was misleading. They
had purchased televisions from Currys because they understood from the
advertisement that Currys would deliver the goods, install them and remove the old
appliances.
ASSESSMENT The BACC provided the ITC with Currys' terms of delivery service. Currys offered
a range of service options, some of which included installation of the new products
as well as removal of the old. Full details of the types of delivery service on offer
were explained in store so customers could choose the most appropriate service for
their needs. Currys told the BACC that the advertisement did not show the delivery
men unpacking the television and neither was there any reference to it being set up,
or to old items being removed. Currys said the intention of the advertisement was to
highlight the fact that the store offered home delivery seven days a week including
Sunday.
The ITC judged that the advertisement had strongly implied that removal of old
appliances, installation of new ones and Sunday delivery were all part of the same
service. It therefore upheld the complainants' view that the advertising was
misleading, because it was capable of giving viewers the impression that the
delivery service was all encompassing, whereas in fact, it was subject to limitations
which had not been made clear. The advertisement should therefore not be re-
shown in its current form.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld.
MISLEADING DFS - Christmas Kiss
Ward, Longworth & Camponi
COMPLAINTS FROM 5 viewers
BACKGROUND The advertisement for DFS promoted its Christmas delivery offer. In the opening
scene superimposed text stated "£599 from order. First year FREE then 36 monthly
payments of £16.64". The text then disappeared and a couple were seen entering a
store and stating: "We've seen the leather sofa we want…that one…but we don't
want to pay anything for a year and we want 4 years interest-free credit and you're
going to deliver before Christmas". The sales assistant replied: "No problem, if you
order this sofa here by 5 o'clock on Sunday, we promise to deliver it by Christmas".
6
ISSUE Viewers believed that the advertising was misleading. Four complained that it did
not mention that the offer was restricted to selected sofas and that the same
commercial, stating that the offer ended "5 o'clock on Sunday", had then been
repeated over a number of weeks.
One viewer complained that the commercial misleadingly implied that the interest
free credit offer was for a total of five years, when the real offer was limited to four.
ASSESSMENT The agency explained that the three separate commercials, each running for one
week only, had featured the specific sofa that had been the subject of that week's
guaranteed Christmas delivery offer. They believed that each advertisement had
made it adequately clear that the offer applied only to the sofa shown. They pointed
out that each featured sofa was shown twice during the relevant commercial. The
couple specifically stated that they wanted "that one" and the salesman responded
by stating that the offer applied to "this" sofa. Although the BACC judged that the
scope of the offer ought to have been clear to viewers generally, it accepted that
viewers had apparently misunderstood.
The ITC judged that the very specific, limited, nature of the Christmas delivery
offer had not been clear from the advertisement and that viewers were unlikely to
have understood that it applied only to the specific sofa shown.
Both the agency and the BACC believed that the nature of the credit offer had been
clearly established in the commercial. In particular, the BACC argued that the
prominent superimposed text at the start of the commercial reasonably resolved any
ambiguity in the audio claim which came later.
The ITC noted that the credit offer was a four-year deal, consisting of a year with
no payments followed by three years' interest free credit.
However, it judged the audio statement "..We don't want to pay anything for a year
and we want four years' interest free credit …" to have been ambiguous because the
"and we want" could be interpreted by viewers to mean that the credit offer was for
a total of five years.
The ITC accepted that the superimposed text message had appeared clear and
legible at the beginning of the advertisement. However, because it had disappeared
well before the audio statement, the ITC judged it was unlikely to have helped to
clarify the ambiguity as to the scope of the offer.
The ITC agreed that the advertising had, on balance, been misleading and required
that it not be reshown in its current form.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld.
MISLEADING Dial-4-a-Loan
ARM-Direct
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND The advertisement, for a personal loan company, contained on screen text giving
various credit examples and information about the offer.
ISSUE A viewer complained that when he had seen the commercial on the Cartoon
Network he had been unable to read some of this text due to it being obscured by
the channel's on-screen logo.
7
ASSESSMENT The channel accepted that the Cartoon Network logo had covered some small
sections of the text. It believed however that the text could still be read and had
approved the transmission on this basis. It explained that it was currently reviewing
its tape specifications for advertisers to make it clearer that text should only appear
in areas of the screen that would not be obscured by its channel logo.
The ITC noted the channel's comments but judged that the text had not been clearly
legible, in breach of the requirement in Rule 8 of the Code. It therefore required
that the advertisement not be re-shown unless the issue of conflict between text and
logo had been resolved. It emphasised that it was the responsibility of the channel
rather than the advertiser to ensure that text remained legible in spite of the
presence of on-screen channel logos.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
MISLEADING Freeserve – Naturists
M & C Saatchi
COMPLAINTS FROM 4 viewers
BACKGROUND An advertisement for Freeserve Anytime claimed to offer viewers free internet
connection for a month. The audio offer stated "Freeserve Anytime gives you one
month's free trial and a tiny monthly fee after that". Viewers were invited to call a
freephone number for further details.
ISSUE Viewers objected that the advertisement was misleading. They believed the free
trial was open to all, when in fact a BT line was required in order to take up the
offer.
ASSESSMENT The ITC contacted the BACC and established that a BT line was required in order
to benefit from the free trial.
The BACC told the ITC that originally the advertiser had told them there were no
material conditions to the offer. The BACC had cleared the advertisement for
broadcast on this understanding. It later discovered that Freeserve were relying on
the freephone number's recorded message to communicate the terms and conditions
of the offer. The BACC advised Freeserve that the disclaimer must be included in
the advertisement and that information on a freephone number should not be used
to correct a misleading impression given in the commercial itself. The original
advertisement had finished its run at this stage. When Freeserve ran the commercial
for a second time, a line of superimposed text explaining the BT line requirement
was added.
The ITC judged that when initially broadcast, the commercial had been capable of
giving the impression that the offer was available to all. As it had been limited to
those customers who had a BT line, and this limitation had not been clearly stated,
the ITC concluded that the advertising had been misleading. It should not be
reshown in its current form.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld.
8
MISLEADING Ideal World HS – Product
Unknown Agency
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND A promotion on Ideal World offered viewers the opportunity to buy a Pathfinder
telephone which enabled users to save money on calls via the Hello Home Services
network while remaining plugged into their existing BT line. The telephone was
advertised at £14.99 and included £10-worth of free calls. A Recommended Retail
Price (RRP) of £24.99 was quoted on-screen.
In order to save money on calls from other extensions and to avoid the necessity of
plugging the Pathfinder telephone into different sockets, the presenter suggested
buying another telephone, which would give customers the added benefit of an
extra £10-worth of free calls. Customers could also make a saving when using
cordless telephones by dialling out on the Pathfinder before picking up the call.
ISSUE The ITC received a complaint which stated that the same offer, including the free
calls, was available from the Hello Call Save website for £14.99, making the
£24.99 RRP quoted on-screen inaccurate and misleading.
Once registered with Hello Home Services, the complainant said it was possible to
make calls from other extensions on the existing telephone, by using a prefix
number. He felt the promotion had been misleading by suggesting you needed to
buy more than one Pathfinder telephone to benefit fully from the service.
ASSESSMENT Ideal World said it had advertised the telephone and free calls package for an
onscreen price of £10 plus postage and packing. The free calls would be awarded in
the form of a £1 credit on the customer's account for the first 10 months. Ideal
World argued that the total value of the package, including the free calls was
£24.99 and therefore felt the RRP displayed onscreen was genuine and not
misleading.
One of Ideal World's presenters regularly checked the Hello Call Save website in
the days leading up to the show. At no point did it state that Pathfinder users could
dial a prefix number on their existing telephones to get cheap calls. Furthermore, a
Hello Home Services representative who was at the studio when the show was
recorded did not mention the prefix function. Ideal World had firmly believed that
the only way to access the system and get cheaper calls was by using the telephone
itself. But although it said there was no intention to mislead, it acknowledged that
this was the outcome.
The ITC did not accept Ideal World's argument regarding the RRP displayed
onscreen. The cost of the telephone was £14.99 and the £10-worth of calls was
awarded free. Consequently, although £24.99 might have represented the overall
value of the package, it did not represent its recommended retail price.
The ITC accepted there had been no intention to mislead viewers about use of the
telephone from different extensions, but thought Ideal World should have verified
the telephone's features with the supplier prior to broadcast rather than relying on
information published on its website.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld.
9
MISLEADING Live 1-2-1 Girls
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND A viewer complained to the ITC about an advertisement for Live 1-2-1 Girls, a
telephone service offering live chat at £1 per minute.
ISSUE The viewer objected to the advertisement on the grounds that it was not "live" and
that the calls, which were itemised on his phonebill, had been charged at £1.50 per
minute rather than £1 as advertised. The ITC asked the BACC for its comments.
ASSESSMENT Despite several requests, the advertiser did not supply the BACC with evidence to
support the claims made in the advertisement. The ITC therefore exercised its
powers under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 to
consider the advertisement misleading. It required the commercial to be suspended
from transmission until such time as proper evidence could be produced.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
MISLEADING NTL Digital
J. Walter Thompson
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND A viewer complained to the ITC about NTL Digital Active onscreen information
which promised "interactive services coming soon".
ISSUE The viewer felt this caption was misleading because NTL did not have a set
timetable for the introduction of the new services. The ITC contacted NTL for its
comments.
ASSESSMENT NTL recognised the problem with the onscreen information. It told the ITC that due
to recent restructuring the responsibility for updating screen changes had not been
clearly identified and it intended to address this shortcoming. NTL explained that it
would not be possible to update the information straightaway because it was held
on an embedded page. This type of page was hard-coded into the set-top box and
changing the information would therefore require sending a new set of codes to
every set-top box in the franchise – a major task which would involve considerable
testing to ensure no other service was affected by the code change. A rollout
programme had been drawn up to ensure onscreen information would be updated
by NTL across the relevant areas by the end of April 2002. NTL were unable to
provide dates for the rollout of the new information screens to particular areas, but
stated that the process would start by March 2002.
The ITC did not think NTL had been justified in claiming "interactive services
coming soon" if a timetable for rollout had not been established. It therefore
supported the complainant's view that the onscreen information had been
misleading. The ITC requested that current onscreen information be removed but
accepted that technical difficulties prevented NTL from updating the information
immediately. NTL confirmed that the updated information replacing the previous
screen image would be displayed by the end of April 2002.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
10
MISLEADING Powergen - Monsters Inc Reward
Traffic Bureau
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND An advertisement for Powergen offered customers the opportunity to earn Monsters
Inc rewards and invited them to call a freephone number for details.
ISSUE A viewer complained to the ITC that only when she had tried to take up the offer
had it become clear that as an existing Powergen customer she was not eligible. She
thought the advertisement was misleading for not making this condition clear.
ASSESSMENT The advertiser said there was nothing in the advertisement to suggest that the
reward scheme was available to all Powergen customers. It thought it was clear
from the advertisement that viewers would have to call the freephone number to
find out how they might be able to earn rewards. Furthermore, it felt the
superimposed text stating "terms and conditions apply" emphasised the fact that the
offer was not open to everyone.
Powergen stated that some existing customers were able to take up the offer. The
restriction only applied to those who were already signed up to all Powergen
products (domestic gas, electricity and fixed line telecommunications). Customers
with only one of two of these core products could call the freephone number and
earn rewards by signing up for a new one.
The advertiser expressed the opinion that most viewers knew that promotions such
as this were generally used to attract new customers and that the information given
in the advertisement was adequate to minimise any misunderstanding. It said that
customers could find out about the offer at no cost and minimal effort by calling the
freephone number. In addition, existing customers had all received a direct mailing
explaining the full terms and conditions of the promotion.
The ITC judged the exclusion of some existing customers to be a significant
condition that should have been stated in the advertisement. It therefore did not
accept the advertiser's argument that the freephone number and "terms and
conditions apply" superimposed text were sufficient to make the nature of the offer
clear. It stressed that an advertisement could be judged misleading if the amount of
time and money spent exploring an advertised offer was disproportionate to a
reasonable viewer's expectations of conditions attached to it. In this case, the ITC
considered that the viewer had, in phoning the advertised number, spent time
finding out about the offer to discover that as an existing Powergen customer she
was unable to earn Monsters Inc rewards.
It judged that information on a freephone number and direct mailing should not be
used to explain significant conditions to an offer or to correct a misleading
impression given in the commercial itself. It concluded that the advertising had
been misleading, and should not be reshown in its current form.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld.
11
MISLEADING Shop America
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND During an advertisement for a product aimed at improving a golfer's ability to shoot
straight, Shop America displayed a caption showing a marked reduction in price to
a special offer price of "£49.99 for this half hour only".
ISSUE A viewer complained that the commercial had been misleading because it had been
broadcast a number of times. He told the ITC that each time it was broadcast, the
same claim - that the reduced price was available for "this half hour only" – was
made.
ASSESSMENT ITC rules require that advertisements indicating price, price comparisons or price
reductions must be accurate and incapable of misleading. It asked Shop America to
comment. However, no response was received.
Under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations the ITC has a duty to
investigate complaints about misleading advertisements and is empowered to
regard a factual claim as inaccurate unless adequate evidence of accuracy is
furnished to it when requested. The ITC, in the absence of a response from the
licensee, found the advertising to have given viewers a misleading impression of
the duration of the special price and required Shop America not to broadcast the
advertising again in its current form.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld.
MISLEADING Shop!
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND A Shop! promotion for the George Foreman Fat Reducing Machine claimed "we
have exclusive rights to this particular machine on TV Home Shopping. You will
not find this anywhere else on any TV home shopping channels".
ISSUE The ITC received one complaint from a viewer who said they had seen the same
item for sale on QVC and felt the promotion on Shop! was misleading.
ASSESSMENT Shop! confirmed that they had exclusive TV Home Shopping rights to the
advertised item which had a green lid and was supplied by Salton UK. QVC offered
a slightly different model with a silver lid which was supplied by Salton USA, via
QVC USA.
The ITC acknowledged that the claims made in the Shop! promotion were factually
correct because it only showed the machine it had the rights to. However, it felt the
claims were inflated and still had the potential to mislead. A viewer would interpret
the claim to mean the George Foreman Fat Reducing Machine was only available
from Shop!, rather than that specific colour. It considered that the promotion would
dissuade viewers from looking elsewhere for the product and therefore affect their
economic behaviour. The ITC agreed the advertising was misleading in this respect
and required that it not be shown again it its present form.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
12
MISLEADING Shop!
COMPLAINTS FROM 4 viewers
BACKGROUND A Shop! promotion advertised a Siemens C35 mobile phone including free calls
every month for the life of the phone.
ISSUE Viewers complained that the free calls package was not available for a lifetime.
ASSESSMENT Shop! explained the mobile phone was supplied with BT's Pay Up Front package
which offers two different free calls options. This package is normally only valid
for the first 12 months. However, Shop's supplier had negotiated with BT Cellnet to
extend the offer for the lifetime of the phone. It received confirmation of this deal
by email.
As with other Pay Up Front mobile phone packages, customers were required to
contact BT Cellnet to register their details and select which call package they
wanted. At this stage several customers alerted Shop! to the fact that free calls were
only available for a 12-month period and not for the lifetime of the phone. It
reacted by taking the product off-air and asked the supplier why the offer had not
been available to Shop! customers. The supplier confirmed that it had made an
error and would not be able to honour the deal. Shop! contacted all customers who
had ordered the product and gave them the option of returning the phone free of
charge or keeping it at a reduced price with 12 months of free calls.
The ITC judged that it was as a result of a misunderstanding between BT Cellnet
and Shop's supplier, that the channel had misled its viewers. It acknowledged that
Shop had received confirmation of the deal prior to broadcast of the advertisement
and had no intention to mislead. It also noted the channel had reacted swiftly to
complaints by withdrawing the advertisement and compensating its customers. The
ITC took no further action.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld.
MISLEADING Simply Shopping
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND A viewer complained to the ITC about an advertisement for Epil Stop & Spray, a
hair removal product, shown on Simply Shopping.
ISSUE The advertisement showed the product being applied to legs, arms and faces and
the hair being instantly removed when it was wiped away. The audio claim "spray
and wipe away" was used repeatedly throughout the presentation. The viewer
ordered the product to discover it had to be left on the skin for at least five minutes
before hair could be removed. The viewer felt the advertisement was misleading.
13
ASSESSMENT The ITC asked Simply Shopping to provide a tape of the advertisement and
evidence to support the claims made.
Simply Shopping provided two versions of the advertisement. The first version was
on-air when the complainant ordered the product, but was subsequently withdrawn
due to stock shortages. On assessment, the ITC shared the viewer's concern about
the "spray and wipe away" claim. It was also concerned by the suggestion that the
product could be used on men's faces, as pack instructions clearly stated it could
not.
Simply Shopping told the ITC that it had realised the advertisement could be
viewed as misleading and hoped a new edit, with two additional lines of
superimposed text, would address the problem. Broadcast of this amended version
started during the ITC's initial investigation.
The ITC considered the new advertisement. It found the added text "product must
be left on for at least five minutes and no longer than eight minutes" now
contradicted the visual and audio claims and did not alter the overriding impression
that the product worked instantly. Since the shot of the man using it on his face
remained, it found the additional text stating it should not be used on men's faces
similarly contradictory. The ITC ordered Simply Shopping to suspend broadcast of
the advertisement pending further investigation.
Clinical trial data provided by Simply Shopping substantiated the efficacy of Epil
Stop & Spray and its safety as a method of hair removal. However, there was no
support for the implied claim that the product worked straight away or that it was
safe to use on men's faces. The ITC judged the original advertisement (as seen by
the complainant) to be misleading and judged the additional text on the second
advertisement to be insufficient to rectify the misleading claims made.
The ITC was concerned that the breaches of the Advertising Code with regard to
the original commercial had not been identified prior to broadcast. It recognised
that Simply Shopping had tried to amend the advertisement to bring it in to line
when it was shown for a second time but concluded that insufficient care had been
taken to ensure the advertisement was fully compliant with the ITC Code prior to
broadcast, and further amendment or withdrawal was required.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
MISLEADING TelSell & Millennium 7
COMPLAINTS FROM Staff investigation
BACKGROUND While investigating a viewer complaint about an advertisement for Epil Stop &
Spray on Simply Shopping (see above), the ITC became aware that a version of the
same advertisement, which raised the same concerns, was being shown on TelSell.
The TelSell advertisement did not carry onscreen text.
ASSESSMENT The ITC contacted TelSell for its comments and requested that the advertisement
be suspended pending further investigation. TelSell explained that it had made a
mistake. Although it had intended to edit the commercial, that editing had not taken
place and as a result unsuitable material had been broadcast.
14
The ITC was aware of the likelihood of other channels carrying this advertising and
sent a letter to all licensees alerting them to the problems identified. It asked
licensees broadcasting any version of the Epil Stop & Spray commercial to check
thoroughly that it complied in every respect with the ITC Code, and if in any doubt,
to contact the ITC for guidance.
Millennium 7 duly made contact. It provided a copy of a commercial already on-
air, which was identical to the Telsell version. Consistent with the action it had
taken against Simply Shopping and TelSell, the ITC ordered Millennium 7 to
suspend broadcast of the commercial pending investigation and to provide
comments in support of its decision to accept it for broadcast.
The ITC noted that the Millennium 7 version had been supplied to it by TelSell and
as the agency Millennium 7 used for code clearance appeared to have missed the
code breaches it had also broadcast unsuitable material.
The ITC judged the advertising to be misleading and required that it remain off air.
It expressed concern at the compliance procedures in operation at both TelSell and
Millennium 7 and sought confirmation from the respective channels that necessary
and effective measures were in place to clear advertisements for broadcast in
accordance with the ITC Code.
CONCLUSION Staff intervention
MISLEADING TelSell
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND A viewer complained to the ITC about an advertisement for Epil Stop & Spray, a
hair removal product, shown on TelSell which offered a life-time re-fill for the Epil
roll-on with every bottle purchased.
ISSUE When the viewer called to order the product, they were told the offer was not
available to TelSell customers. The viewer felt the advertising was misleading.
ASSESSMENT The ITC contacted TelSell for its comments in relation to this offer and to its
concerns about the advertisement in general (see above). TelSell's response applied
to both cases. It explained that the wrong version of the commercial was shown
because the necessary editing had not been done. The ITC judged the advertisement
misleading and sought reassurance from TelSell that effective compliance
procedures were in place to clear all advertisements for broadcast.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
15
MISLEADING TV Warehouse
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND An advertisement on TV Warehouse for the Do-All-Disc offered viewers a set of
products including a multi-position clamp.
ISSUE A viewer complained that when she received her order it did not include the clamp.
She telephoned TV Warehouse and was told that the clamps were out of stock and
were not being replaced. The viewer felt the advertisement was misleading because
the out of stock item was still being advertised. The ITC contacted the broadcaster
for its comments.
ASSESSMENT TV Warehouse confirmed that the Do-All-Disc offer should have included the
multi-position clamp. It explained that an offer on QVC had promoted a similar set
of products without the clamp and unfortunately the manufacturer supplied some of
these sets to TV Warehouse in error. It said that all customers who reported the
error would receive the missing clamp and confirmed that any further orders would
include the item. The ITC accepted that TV Warehouse had acted in good faith and
noted its efforts to reimburse those customers affected. It was concerned that the
channel had not acted upon the viewer call which identified the problem, but noted
that the call centre had been reminded to report any similar calls immediately. It
concluded that the advertisement had been misleading.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
OFFENSIVE Celebrations – Sneeze
Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO
COMPLAINTS FROM 8 viewers
BACKGROUND An advertisement for Celebrations chocolates showed a man who had spent most of
his life trying to sneeze. Eventually, when he did sneeze, his family celebrated.
ISSUE The ITC received 8 complaints from viewers who objected to the advertisement
because they felt it mocked people with speech impediments. Two viewers had
young relatives with autism and although they realised the character in the
advertisement was about to sneeze, said the noise made was similar to the type of
noise made when autistic children tried to speak. Another viewer had a disabled
daughter who could not talk. These viewers all felt the advertisement was
insensitive and insulting because it made someone who appeared to have a speech
defect an object to be laughed at.
ASSESSMENT The advertiser apologised for any offence caused and said there had been no
intention to suggest that the main character had a form of disability or speech
impediment. It said that the advertisement was intended to be humorous, light-
hearted in tone and in-keeping with the rest of the campaign which featured people
celebrating small events in their lives. Nevertheless, due to the sensitivity of the
complaints, the advertiser decided to take the advertisement off-air pending the
ITC's ruling.
16
The ITC accepted that there had been no intention to mock a character with a
disability or speech impediment. However, it understood how viewers had
interpreted the imagery in this way and felt the likelihood of it causing offence
could have been reduced had the fact he was about to sneeze been made more clear.
It supported the advertiser's decision to withdraw the advertisement from broadcast
and judged the commercial in its current form should remain off-air.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld
OFFENSIVE NSPCC – Cartoon
Saatchi & Saatchi Ltd
COMPLAINTS FROM 127 viewers
BACKGROUND The commercial featured a mixture of real-life action, with a cartoon character in
the style of a robust little boy who bounced back regardless of his father's
increasingly violent attacks upon him. The attacks included putting a cigarette out
on his head and throwing him down the stairs. The closing scene showed a real boy
and the caption "real children don't bounce back".
ISSUE The complainants who had contacted the ITC had found the advertisement
upsetting and shocking. Twelve viewers had personal experience of child abuse and
found it an upsetting reminder of their own traumatic experience. Five viewers felt
the advertisement suggested that only men abused children. Several viewers
acknowledged that raising awareness of child abuse was important but felt this
particular treatment had overstepped the mark.
ASSESSMENT The BACC considered this advertisement at length before clearing it for broadcast.
It concluded that the cartoon treatment was particularly effective in communicating
the message that "real children don't bounce back" but judged it should not be
shown before the 9 o'clock watershed because of its graphic imagery.
The NSPCC said it had no intention to cause distress to viewers and apologised to
anyone who had been upset by the advertisement. The purpose of the campaign was
to tackle the issue of child abuse. It acknowledged that this was an unpleasant
subject and could understand why many people would rather not be confronted by
it. However, it did need to be addressed, and extensive research conducted by the
charity throughout the campaign's development showed that the hard hitting
imagery was an effective means of conveying the seriousness of the issue and
moving people to take action if they were concerned about a child. The NSPCC
acknowledged that the advertising could be distressing to viewers who had
themselves been victims of child abuse. It too had received complaints. However, it
had also received statements from many people who supported the campaign.
Although it upset them, they recognised its importance in raising awareness and
preventing abuse to others.
The NSPCC said there was no intention to suggest that only men or fathers abused
children. It recognised that male and female abusers were equally guilty and
previous campaigns had reflected this.
17
The ITC sympathised with viewers who had found the advertisement upsetting and
particularly those with personal experience. The cartoon treatment had an
extremely hard-hitting effect, perhaps more so than previous advertisements.
However, on balance, the ITC accepted the advertiser's arguments in support of the
campaign. It acknowledged that the NSPCC had taken a great deal of care during
the development stage to ensure that the campaign worked effectively whilst
attempting to minimise distress to viewers in general.
CONCLUSION Complaints not upheld
OFFENSIVE Scheduling
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND On the 14 January at 7.10 PM, the Sci-Fi Channel broadcast a promotion for
Television X, an adult channel.
ISSUE A viewer expressed concern that an advertisement of this nature had been shown
before the watershed.
ASSESSMENT The ITC expects licensees to exercise responsible judgement on the scheduling of
advertising and in particular to operate internal systems capable of identifying in
advance and avoiding, scheduling which could cause distress or offence. Sci-Fi
explained that the person responsible for ensuring that ITC rules were complied
with mistook the advertisement for a music channel advertisement. They have
taken steps to amend their procedures to ensure that it does not happen again and
apologised for the error.
The ITC reminded Sci-Fi that it was a requirement that they were always in a
position to comply with ITC rules.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
OFFENSIVE Toyota Corolla
Saatchi & Saatchi Ltd
COMPLAINTS FROM 2 viewers
BACKGROUND An advertisement for Toyota Corolla showed a man telling a doctor about his
excessive cleaning habits. The doctor suggested there was nothing to worry about
and that she could find something to help. The next scene showed the man cleaning
and polishing the doctor's car.
ISSUE Two viewers complained that the advertisement was discriminatory to people with
mental health problems and in particular those with Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder (OCD). One of the complainants had OCD.
18
ASSESSMENT The advertiser told the BACC the advertisement was one of six others within a
campaign it planned to run for 18 months.
It said the campaign's development involved extensive consumer research to ensure
that no scenarios or depiction of characters within them would cause offence. The
advertiser did not think it had demeaned the patient or discriminated against people
with mental health problems, a view shared, it said, by the many research
respondents who had viewed the advertisement over the last twelve months.
Respondents found the advertisement to be a "light-hearted, mildly humorous
depiction of a person's love for a car". At no point had it been found offensive. The
BACC supported the advertiser's views.
The ITC did not agree. It judged that the advertiser's consumer research only
appeared to have sought the opinions of viewers generally, but not the views of
people with experience of mental health problems such as OCD. It considered that
the realistic depiction of the condition in the setting of a doctor's consulting room
was likely to be seen by some viewers, particularly by those who have, or are close
to someone who has OCD, as mocking and trivialising. The ITC therefore
concluded that the advertisement was capable of discriminating against and
offending people with mental health problems such as OCD. It ordered that the
advertisement should not be re-transmitted in its current form.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld
OFFENSIVE Xbox
Bartle Bogle Hegarty
COMPLAINTS FROM 136 viewers
BACKGROUND An advertisement for the Microsoft X-Box (a games console) started with a woman
giving birth to a baby boy. In the surreal sequence that followed the baby's birth, he
shot out of a window, and aged rapidly as he travelled at speed through the air. He
screamed throughout the journey before violently crashing into his own grave as an
old man. The advertisement ended with the line "Life is short. Play more".
ISSUE The ITC received 136 complaints from viewers who felt this advertising was
offensive, shocking and in bad taste. Some, including a pregnant woman and a new
mother, objected in particular to the childbirth scene and most thought the final
scene showing the body crashing into a grave was extremely disturbing. Twenty
recently bereaved viewers found the advertisement particularly offensive and one
viewer who had lost a child during childbirth found the advertisement to be an
upsetting reminder of her own experience. Many viewers, including some who had
had a major illness, considered the end-line "Life is short. Play more", when
combined with the imagery, to be especially insensitive. The other complainants
made more general comments about the tone of the advertisement and the striking
imagery which showed a rapidly ageing man.
ASSESSMENT The BACC said the advertisement had demonstrated man's journey from birth to
death in a fast and hard-hitting way to emphasise the point that life is short and
should be enjoyed. The advertiser added that its message "Life is short. Play more"
was intended to be a "positive statement about life". It regretted any upset caused to
bereaved viewers, but felt that in such circumstances many everyday images and
events could act as a similarly painful reminder.
19
The ITC did not agree that the advertisement conveyed a "positive statement about
life". It thought that the man's screams throughout his life's journey suggested a
traumatic experience, which, together with the reminder that life is short, made the
final scene more shocking. The ITC also reminded the BACC of the need to be
sensitive about references to death in advertisements. Advertisements cannot be
avoided by those who are grieving in the way that programmes whose content is
flagged in advance can. In that context it considered that the final scene of a body
smashing into its grave was unnecessary and had caused considerable distress to
many viewers. It ordered the advertisement not to be re-shown in its current form.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld
OFFENSIVE Yo Yo Service
COMPLAINTS FROM Staff monitoring
BACKGROUND This channel, a digital interactive service utilising premium rate telephony as a
charging mechanism, enables viewers to create a personalised profile for
themselves which then appears on the television screen. In order to create a profile,
viewers must choose a number of adjectives from lists provided by YoYo. Other
viewers can then view the profiles and, if they wish, opt to contact those whose
profiles interest them by means of a premium rate virtual chat system. In effect, the
channel could be viewed as an on-screen contact service, similar to those found in
newspapers and magazines.
ISSUE Routine monitoring of the service revealed that the list of adjectives created by
YoYo for viewers to choose from contained a number of sexually suggestive terms,
enabling viewers to create profiles of a highly sexual nature. Example profiles,
which were on screen at all times of day, included:
"Love god with a big knob and a pert arse, kinky but uncomplicated. Loves txt
messages and larging it. Seeks someone with a big knob and chiselled features for
debauchery."
"Unstoppable sex machine with a marvellous physique and pert arse, kinky but
feisty. Loves pain and boozers. Seeks someone with huge knockers and a pert arse,
for perverse practices."
The service also contained information on safety precautions to take when meeting
YoYo users.
ASSESSMENT The Advertising Code contains at rule 39 a section on introduction and dating
services. This applies equally to telephone based contact services as to more formal
introduction agencies. One of the requirements of the rule is that advertisements for
such services must not contain material that could be taken to encourage or
condone promiscuity. The ITC concluded that a number of profiles had been
broadcast that breached this requirement. In addition it judged that a number of the
adjectives were inappropriate for use in an advertising context, going beyond what
is generally considered acceptable. Static TV, the licensee, accepted that their
choice of adjectives had led to profiles of a sexual nature appearing on-screen and
apologised. They explained that technical
20
reasons had left them unable to revise the terms prior to the launch of the service
but that the phrases had since been replaced to ensure that profiles could not be
seen to encourage or condone promiscuity. They had also taken steps to ensure
compliance with the ITC Code by employing extra internal resource to deal with
such issues. The ITC noted the measures taken by Static to remedy the problem and
concluded that no further action was necessary on this occasion.
CONCLUSION Staff intervention
OFFENSIVE Yorkie Girl – Builder
J. Walter Thompson
COMPLAINTS FROM 69 viewers
BACKGROUND Yorkie's "It's not for girls" campaign showed a woman impersonating a man in
order to buy a Yorkie chocolate bar. The shopkeeper tested her knowledge of the
off-side rule, preference for stockings or suspenders and strength (she had to open a
tightly sealed jar). He appeared satisfied but as a final test he paid her a compliment
on the colour of her eyes. As she blushed and accepted the compliment her true
gender was revealed and he snatched the chocolate bar away.
ISSUE Viewers complained that the advertisement was discriminatory towards women and
that it encouraged sexist attitudes. Among those who complained, two teachers and
a parent felt it could encourage sexist bullying in the playground.
ASSESSMENT The ITC considered the scenario of a woman pretending to be a man in order to buy
a bar of chocolate fanciful and bizarre; it was unlikely to be taken seriously by
viewers in general and was not, in the ITC's view, discriminatory. It understood
how the phrase "it's not for girls" might irritate some viewers. However, the ITC
did not judge that viewers would be genuinely offended by what was a somewhat
ridiculous and light-hearted sequence of events.
With no reported cases of the advertisement being directly responsible for
playground bullying, the ITC did not agree that it encouraged or condoned bullying
or this was a likely consequence of what had been shown.
CONCLUSION Complaints not upheld
MISCELLANEOUS Scheduling Actor Separation
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND On 21 January Anglia Television transmitted an advertisement for COI Blood
Donors featuring William Roache during an episode of 'Coronation Street' in which
he also appeared.
ISSUE A viewer was concerned that it breached ITC rules.
21
ASSESSMENT ITC rules require that advertisements featuring a personality or performer must not
be scheduled in or adjacent to a programme in which they also appear. Granada,
who schedule air-time on behalf of Anglia, explained that due to human error there
had been some confusion over artists' names which had led to the advertisement
being incorrectly scheduled. Granada apologised for the breach of ITC rules.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
MISCELLANEOUS Scheduling - Actor Separation
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND On 1 December on Scottish Television during CD UK an advertisement for a Geri
Halliwell CD was shown in a break adjacent to that part of the programme in which
she also appeared.
ISSUE A viewer was concerned that this may have breached ITC rules.
ASSESSMENT ITC rules require that advertisements featuring a personality or performer must not
be scheduled in or adjacent to a programme in which they also appear. An
exception to this rule is that appearances by personalities in magazine style, variety
and pop concerts are allowed, provided they are not in the breaks adjacent to the
artist's appearance. Carlton, who schedule advertising on behalf of Scottish,
explained that Geri Halliwell appeared in a montage of very brief clips from
various artists about which they had not been informed. Carlton apologised for the
error.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
MISCELLANEOUS Scheduling - Actor Separation
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND On 20 December a number of ITV regions transmitted an advertisement for a CD
featuring Marti Pellow at the end of an episode of Emmerdale in which he also
appeared.
ISSUE A viewer was concerned that it breached ITC rules.
22
ASSESSMENT ITC rules require that advertisements featuring a personality or performer must not
be scheduled in or adjacent to a programme in which they also appear. On
investigating the case, it appeared that most ITV regions had applied a lesser
restriction which allowed the advertisement to appear in the break following the
programme, provided it was not first in the break. The ITC concluded that this had
been an incorrect decision and that the full artist separation restriction was required
on this occasion.
Both Granada and Carlton (the sales houses for the ITV regions concerned)
apologised for their mistake.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
MISCELLANEOUS Scheduling - Actor Separation
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND On 18 January on Channel 4 an advertisement featuring Carol Smillie was shown
during 'So Graham Norton' in which she also appeared.
ISSUE A viewer complained that this was a breach of ITC rules.
ASSESSMENT ITC rules require that advertisements featuring a personality or performer must not
be scheduled in or adjacent to a programme in which they also appear. Channel 4
explained that due to a series of administrative errors they incorrectly scheduled the
advertisement featuring Carol Smillie. Channel 4 apologised for the breach.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld
23
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
HARMFUL 1
AA Insurance 1
AA Insurance - DIY 1
Arnold Clarke Motor Dealers 1
Auto Trader 1
B4U TV 1
Batchelors Cup a Soup 9
Benylin Active Response 1
BMW Mini - Zombies 1
Bold - Wrinkles 23
Boots 1
British Telecom - Answer 1571 1
British Telecom 1571 – Bathtime 1
Campino Sweets 1
Cancer Research UK – Photograph 1
Carling Black Label 1
Celebrations – Toys 10
Centrum – Bubblewrap 1
Cheesestrings – Marquee 1
Coca Cola - 3pm 1
COI - Learn Direct 1
24
COI - Learn Direct (Phones) 1
COI - Literacy & Reading 5
Coors Light - Beer Run 1
Daewoo Cars 1
Dairylea Lunchables 1
Direct Line Motor Insurance 1
Direct Line Rescue 2
Dulux Colour – Plasticine 3
Fairy Aromatics 1
Fanta 1
Febreeze - Fabric Spray 2
Fedex – Ambulance 1
FedEx - Pizza to go 1
Fiat Stilo 1
Ford Mondeo 6
Fruit Winders 1
Fybogel 5
Gaviscon Heartburn Remedy 1
Glade Touch n Fresh 1
Grand Theft Auto 1
Halls Mentholyptus – Golfer 1
Haribo - 100 metres 1
Harvester – Monkeys 1
Heineken – Rudolph 1
Homebase Sale – Bunkbed 1
HSA - Patrol Car 3
HSA Superplan - Laundrette Rab 39
ITV Digital Promotions 1
ITV Digital Sport - Never Told 5
Jacobs Club 1
Jaffa Cakes 1
JD Williams - Shogun Knives 4
Johnson & Johnson Baby Wipes 2
Kelloggs Crunchy Nut 2
Kentucky Fried Chicken 1
Kinder Surprise 2
Kit Kat 1
Levis Engineered Jeans 1
Little Rolo 5
Max Steel 1
Mazda - Zoom Zoom 1
McCain Oven Chips – Granny 1
McCains Wedges 1
McDonalds – corporate 1
McDonalds - home safety 1
McDonalds - Paul Gascoigne 2
25
Milkybar Munchies – Children 16
Muller Rice – Polaroid 2
Music - Sophie Ellis Bextor 1
National Autistic Society 1
Naturally Close Lingerie 1
News of the World - In Body 1
Nicorette 1
Nintendo Game Boy Colour 1
Nissan Primera 1
Nivea 1
Pampers Baby Wipes 1
Pantene ProV - Vitamin Drink 6
Parazone Flushable Wipes 1
Philishave - Cool Action 1
Police Recruitment 6
Post Office - Boy on phone 7
Pot Noodles 1
Red Bull - Airplane 1
Reebok - The Blob 1
Reef 1
Renault Clio - Kitchen 6
Right Guard - Xtreme Dating 1
Rover MG Saloons 1
Searching for Product 1
Shelter - Marie 1
Shop America Mega Memory 1
Shreddies 5
Slim Fast Soup 1
Solpadeine 1
Tampax Compak 5
Tia Maria 1
Toyota Avensis 1
Toyota Corolla 103
TV Shop product 1
Vauxhall Zafira - School 4
Vodafone 1
Volkswagen Diesel 1
Volkswagen Passat - Ice Cream 1
Volkswagen Passat - Operation 2
Volkswagen Polo - Surfer 6
Walkers Crisps 1
Walkers Lites - Sunflowers 51
Werthers Original 1
XBox 1
Yakult 2
26
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
MISLEADING 5
0 4
1-2-1 Chatlines 1
207 1
212 1
224 3
225 1
229 1
231 1
272 2
276 1
278 1
283 1
318 1
392 1
667 1
AA Insurance 5
AA Insurance Online - couple 5
Admiral Motor Insurance 1
ADT Burglar Alarms 1
Adult Channel 1
Agatha Christie Collection 1
Allied Dunbar 1
ALY Channel 1
AOL - 100 Hour Free Trial 2
AOL - Parental control 2
Argos 2
Argos - Voucher 1
Ariel 1
Ask Jeeves 1
Astral Moisturiser 1
AXA Sunlife Bonus Cashbuilder 1
Axa Sunlife Direct 1
B&Q 2
B & Q - Dehumidifier 3
B & Q - Floormaster Loc 1
BACS Direct Debit 1
Baines & Ernst 3
Bank of Scotland - 20% 2
Bells Whisky 1
Benecol 1
Bid-up.tv 5
Bid-up.tv product 10
Blockbuster Video 1
27
BMI Baby.com 1
Braun Toothbrushes 2
Brewsters Restaurants 1
Britannia Home Video 1
British Airways 1
British Eggs - empty fridge 1
British Gas 4
British Telecom - Answer 1571 2
British Telecom - Cheap Weekend 1
British Telecom - Surf Time 1
British Telecom - Together 5
Brooks & Bentley - Footprints 1
BT Cellnet 2
BT Internet - Anytime 2
BT Openworld Anytime 12
BT Openworld Anytime - Pool 1
Build The Titanic - Magazine 2
BUPA - Active Care 6
BUPA - Mrs Hunter 2
Burger King 2
Camelot Lottery Extra 1
Cancer Research UK - Photograph 1
Cheltenham & Gloucester Mortgage 1
Chessington World of Adventure 1
Churchill Insurance 1
Citroen C5 1
Citroen Xsara - Picasso 1
Claims Direct 2
Clairol Herbal Essences 1
Co-Op Stores 1
COI - Anti Smoking 1
COI - Benefit Fraud 2
COI - Blood Donors 1
COI - DVLA Vehicle Tax 1
COI - Environment 1
COI - Modern Apprenticeships 1
COI - Royal Navy 1
COI - Smoke Alarms 1
COI - Smoke Alarms (Graveyard) 1
Comet 2
Cornhill Insurance 1
Cornhill Insurance - Cashback 1
Courts Furnishings 1
Currys 3
Daily Mail - Queen Mother Plate 1
Danone Actimel 1
28
Daz Dyelock Plus - Mental 1
Del Prado Victorian Dolls 1
DETR - Think Speed 11
DFS 4
DFS - Sale End 1
Dial -4-a-Loan 1
Diamond Car Insurance 1
Direct Car Finance 1
Direct Line - Granny robbed 2
Direct Line Home Insurance 2
Direct Line Motor Insurance 3
Direct Line Rescue 1
Dollond & Aitchison - Jan Sale 1
Dolphin Bathrooms 4
Dove Soap 2
Dreams Beds 1
Dulux Colour - Plasticine 1
E4 Trailers/Promotions 1
Egg Card - Daisy 1
Egyptian Tourist Board 1
Elephant.co.uk Insurance 2
Esure - Careless Driver 6
Euro Changeover 2
Fairy Liquid 1
Fifty Plus Catalogue 1
Film Four 1
First Plus Financial Loans 1
Ford Cars 2
Ford Focus - No 2
Ford Mondeo 2
Freeserve 2
Freeserve - Groovey 15
Halifax Current Account - Swan 1
Haribo 1
Harrods infomercial 1
Heat Magazine 1
Hidden Hearing 1
Hill House Hammond 1
Hovis - Best of Both 1
HSA - Laundrette Phone 1
HSA Superplan 1
HSA Superplan - Laundrette Rab 1
HSBC 1
Hyundai - Diesel 2
Ideal World HS - Product 1
Imperial Cancer Research 1
29
Intel Pentium 4 (Alien Photos) 1
Intelligent Finance - Marketing 1
International Technology 6
Exchange
ITV Digital - Monkey 6
ITV Digital Promotions 2
ITV2 Promotions 1
J D Williams Hose & Reel 1
Jaguar X-type 1
JJB & Sports Division 1
Johnson & Johnson Bedtime Bath 1
Kelloggs Cornflakes 1
Kinder Surprise 1
Kingsmill Whole White 1
Lemsip Max Strength 5
Lloyds Pharmacy 1
Lloyds TSB 2
Lombard Direct - Dreams 1
Lunn Poly - Great Escape 2
Manweb 1
MaxiVision - Laser Eye Treatment 1
McDonald's - Silly Lights 1
McDonalds - chicken wrap 1
McDonalds - McChoice Menu 5
McDonalds - Monsters Inc 1
McDonalds - Paul Gascoigne 4
McDonalds McChicken Premier 7
Moben Kitchens 4
More Th>n - Royal Sun Alliance 3
Music - Anastacia (Freak of 1
Nature)
Music - Stereophonics 1
National Lottery 11
National Lottery Instant 1
Millionaire
National Lottery Thunderball 3
National Westminster Bank 6
Nationwide - Reflectors 3
Nationwide Building Society 2
Nikon Digital Camera 1
Nintendo Game Boy Advance 1
Niquitin CQ - Lozenge 1
Nissan Micra 1
Norton Finance 13
Norwich Union - Direct Man 1
NTL Technology 2
Ocean Finance 1
30
One 2 One 1
Orange - texting 1
Orange Phones 1
Oxi Clean - Stain Remover 5
Pampers 1
PC World 1
Pedigree Adult 1
Peugeot 206 GTI 1
Philips Expanium MP3 1
Post Office - Boy on phone 1
Pot Noodles 1
Poundstretcher - Family Clothing 1
Powergen - One Bill 1
QVC Product 2
Red Hot Euro 1
Renault Clio - Kitchen 1
Rowntrees Aero 1
Royal Bank of Scotland - Lunch 2
Safestyle UK 3
Saga Motor Insurance 2
Saga Motor Insurance - Cuba 1
Scottish Executive - Domestic 4
Scottish Widows 7
Screenshop product 1
Screwfix Direct Catalogue 1
SCS Furniture - Autumn 1
Searching for Product 4
Secure Homes - Chair 1
Shades Blinds 1
Shoe Tailor 1
Shop! Product 1
Shredded Wheat 1
Shredded Wheat - Judith Hann 2
Shreddies 1
Simply Shopping Product 4
Simply the Best of the 80s 1
Sky Active Product 2
Sky Buy Product 1
Sky Digital 4
Sky Trailers/Promotions 1
SMA Progress Follow-On Formula 1
Specsavers 1
St Helens Glass 2
Stannah Stairlifts 1
Sun Life 1
Sun Newspaper 1
31
Sunday Express - Easyjet offer 1
Sunday Times - Motoring Guide 1
Swalec 1
Tampax Compak 1
Teacher Training 1
TellSell Product 7
Tesco - Computers for Schools 1
Tesco - Half-price Sale 1
Tesco Credit Card 1
The Free Internet Group - £89. 1
The Observer 2
Time Life - Rock & Roll 8
Time Life - Singers & 2
Songwriters
Time Life - The Art of Woodwork 1
Time Life Music- Power of Love 4
Time Life Video - Mash 1
Tiny Computers 1
Total - Steve 1
Total Fitness Health Club 1
TV & Satellite Weekly 1
TV Licence Evasion 2
TV Licensing 2
TV Shop product 1
TV Warehouse Product 1
TXU Energi - Directions 2
UK Gold Promotions 1
Ultralase 2
Uno Extreme Game 1
Video Co-pilot 2
Video/DVD Cinderella 2 1
Video/DVD Pearl Harbour 2
Vision Express 1
Vodafone 4
Waitrose 1
Walt Disney World 1
Waterstones - Christmas 2001 1
Which? 2
Wood For Good 2
Woolworths 1
WSPA 1
Yes Express Car Credit 6
Zurich Bank 1
32
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
OFFENSIVE AA Insurance 3
AA Insurance - DIY 5
Acorn Stairlifts 1
Adidas 1
Always - Double Trouble 1
Always Pads 3
AOL - Parental control 1
Auto Trader 2
B4U TV 1
Baines & Ernst 1
Batchelors Cup a Soup (Opera) 1
Benylin Active Response 1
Birds Eye Potato 1
Boddingtons 3
Boddingtons - Pillow talk 4
Bodyform 2
Bold - Wrinkles 3
Bounty Towel - Maureen 2
British Telecom 2
British Telecom - Answer 1571 3
British Telecom 5
British Telecom 1571 - Bathtime 3
BT Openworld Anytime - Pool 1
Budweiser 2
Budweiser - Bad Toupee 4
Budweiser - Nudist Colony 7
BUPA 1
BUPA - Active Care 1
BUPA - Mrs Hunter 1
Cadbury's Caramel Fingers 1
Cancer Research UK - Photo Mirror 6
Cancer Research UK - Photograph 21
Carling Black Label 5
Carphone Warehouse - Ashamed 3
Celebrations - Toys 1
Cheltenham & Gloucester 1
Coca-Cola 1
COI - Inland Revenue (Fine) 1
COI - Anti Smoking 1
COI - Anti Smoking (Fag Hag) 1
COI - Bath Safety 1
COI - Benefit Fraud 12
COI - Fire Safety 1
COI - Inland Rev, Mrs Doyle 1
33
COI - Learn Direct 1
COI - Literacy & Reading 6
COI - Smoke Alarms 1
COI - Smoke Alarms (Graveyard) 4
Daily Mirror 3
Daily Mirror - Bin Laden 1
Dairylea Lunchables 1
Daz Ultra 1
DETR - Rear Belts 2001 2
DETR - Think Speed 2
DFS - Double Discount 1
Diamond Car Insurance 7
Direct Car Finance 1
Direct Line - Granny robbed 1
Direct Line Home Insurance 1
Disney World Florida - Daughter 3
Domestos Bleach 1
Domestos Ox - Toilet 20
Doritos 1
Dulux Colour - Fluff 2
Dulux Colour - Plasticine 1
E4 Trailers/Promotions 2
EA Games - Medal of Honour 2
EGG 4
Egg Card - Daisy 4
Emporio Armani Fragrance 1
Energy Efficiency - Bad Boiler 1
Esure - Careless Driver 2
Evening Times - Toon Army 1
Evian 1
Fairy Liquid 1
Febreeze - Fabric Spray 1
Feminax 1
Film Four 2
Film Trailer - Ali G Indahouse 1
Film Trailer - Bend it like Beckham 1
Film Trailer - Black Hawk Down 1
Findus - Feeling Great 1
First Direct - Cat Choice 1
Flora 1
Fox's Biscuits 2
Freeserve - Naturists 9
Fybogel 1
Glade Touch n Fresh 7
Glamour Magazine 1
Green King IPA - night in 1
34
Greene King IPA - night in 6
Grolsch - Interrogation 6
Guardian - Go Offer 10
Halifax Current Account - Swan 2
Harvester - Male Stripper 1
Harvester - Monkeys 4
HEBS - Teen Alcohol 2
Hidden Hearing 1
Holmes Place - Performance 15
Holsten Pils 2
Honda 1
HSA - Patrol Car 1
HSA Superplan - Laundrette Rab 16
HSBC - Behaviour 1
Iams Dog & Cat Food 2
Imodium Plus 1
Imperial Cancer - 3 girls 1
Imperial Cancer Research 2
Imperial Leather Foamburst 1
Insure.co.uk 1
ITV Digital Sport - Never Told 2
ITV Sport-Streaker 8
Jaffa Cakes 1
Jaffa Cakes - Teeth 3
John Lewis - Sunday Opening 1
Johnson & Johnson Baby Wipes 4
Kelloggs Fruit Winders 2
Kenco Coffee 5
KFC Family Feast 1
Kinder Bueno - Love Me 40
Kit Kat 2
Laboratoires Garnier - Natea 1
Lee Jeans 1
Lemsip Max Strength 1
Little Rolo 8
Lunn Poly - Great Escape 2
Magic FM - Nuns 1
Manweb 1
McCain Oven Chips 1
McDonald's - Silly Lights 3
McDonalds - corporate 3
McDonalds - McChoice Menu 14
McDonalds - Paul Gascoigne 1
McDonalds Breakfasts - Recovery Service 7
McDonalds McChicken Premier 1
Mini Wagon Wheels - Beef 1
35
Muller Corners - Lunchbox 2
Muller Light - Steward 6
Mullers Corners 1
Music - Karma Collection 1
National Autistic Society 5
National Lottery 1
Naturally Close Lingerie 1
Catalogue
NDC Milk - Rolf Harris 1
Nescafe (Hairy Cortina) 1
News of the World - In Body 2
Nike 1
Nissan Primera 1
Nokia Phones 2
Norton Finance 1
NSPCC 72
NSPCC - Cartoon 6
Observer Bar Guide 1
Ocean Finance 1
Otex Eardrops 4
Oxfam 1
Oxo Chicken - New Boyfriend 7
Oxo Red 1
Parazone Flushable Wipes 1
Persil Black Velvet - Striptease 2
Peugeot 206 - Dog 3
Peugeot 306 1
Peugeot 307 1
Peugeot 406 4
Peugeot 406 - Hidden Qualities 4
Police Recruitment 4
Pot Noodles 4
Queen Mother Tribute Album 3
RAC 1
Red Room - Nicci French novel 1
Reef - Pants 1
Revels - Take a Chance 3
Right Guard - Xtreme Dating 1
Royal & Sun Alliance 1
Sandals 1
Sandals - new text 68
Scheduling 1
Scottish Blend Tea Bags 1
Scottish Executive - Domestic 2
Scottish Executive - Speed Fools 1
Scottish Widows 1
36
Searching for Product 1
Shape Yoghurt 1
Shreddies 3
Sizzle & Stir - Mechanic 1
Smirnoff Ice 1
Smirnoff Vodka 1
Solpadeine 1
Sony Playstation 2 2
Standard Life Bank 1
Sugar Puffs - Movie 1
Sunday People 1
Sunday People - Loaded Calendar 4
Sunday Times - Motoring Guide 6
surpriseyourwoman.com 1
Tampax Compak 6
Telewest Broadband 1
Tena Lady 1
Tennent's Lager - Murder One 1
Tesco - Healthy Living Range 1
Tesco 24 Hours - Babysitting 1
The Observer - Morris Dancers 2
Time Life Music- Power of Love 2
Tommys Campaign - Za Za 8
Toyota 1
Toyota Corolla 23
TV Licensing 1
UK Gold Promotions 1
Unknown Product 1
Virgin Mobile - Photocopier 6
Virgin Mobile-Photocopier Cleaner 1
Virgin One 2
Virgin One - Pregnant 1
Volkswagen Lupo - Hospital 4
Volkswagen Passat 1
Volkswagen Passat - Ice Cream 3
Volkswagen Passat - Operation 9
Volkswagen Polo 1
Walkers Crisps 2
WH Smith - Big Deal 1
Whyte and Mackay Whisky 1
WKD - Tube 1
World Vision 2
Worthington 2
WSPA - Dancing Bear 2
XBox 55
XBox - Mosquito 3
37
Yes Express Car Credit 3
Yorkie Girl - Builder 27
Zurich Bank 3
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
MISCELLANEOUS 0 2
218 1
AA Ambulance 1
Argos 1
Bodyform 1
Cancer Research UK - Photograph 1
Channel 4 Trailers/Promotions 1
Cheesestrings - Marquee 1
COI - Smoke Alarms 1
Dairylea Lunchables 1
DETR - Rear Belts 2001 1
DETR - Think Speed 1
DFS 2
Direct Car Finance 1
Dolphin Bathrooms 1
Full Marks Mousse 1
GAP Kids 5
Head & Shoulders 1
Hidden Hearing 1
Intelligent Finance - Marketing 1
Jaffa Cakes - Teeth 1
Life Line Direct Life Assurance 1
Lombard Direct Loans 1
McDonalds - McChoice Menu 2
McDonalds - Paul Gascoigne 1
McDonalds - Quarterpounder 99p 1
Miscellaneous 1
Mormon Church 1
NSPCC - Cartoon 1
NTL - Broadband Cable 1
Orange - texting 1
Police Recruitment 1
Powergen - Monsters Inc Reward 1
PPP Healthcare 2
Reef 1
Renault Clio 5
Sainsbury 1
Scheduling 2
Scheduling - Actor Separation 6
38
Schweppes Sparkling 1
Scottish Widows 1
Shell 1
SMA Progress Follow-On Formula 1
Tampax Compak 1
Tesco 1
The Accident Group - 2nd Aid 1
Toyota 1
Toyota Corolla 1
Unknown Product 1
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
UNKNOWN Shop! Product 1
TV Travel Shop 1
UK Style File 1
There were also complaints of a generic character referring to the following matters :-
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
HARMFUL Amount of Advertising 1
Debt Management Companies 2
Miscellaneous comments 1
Sanitary Protection Products 1
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
MISLEADING Accident Claim Companies 2
Home Shopping 1
Miscellaneous comments 2
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
OFFENSIVE General 1
Inappropriate Breaks 1
Miscellaneous comments 2
Sanitary Protection Products 6
Sexism - Men 4
39
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
MISCELLANEOUS Accident Claim Companies 1
Advertising Code: Response 1
Amount of Advertising 35
Car Advertising 1
Cross Promotion 1
ITV minutage 1
Miscellaneous comments 2
Noise 23
Sanitary Protection Products 1
Separation of Advertisements 2
Unknown 1
Product or Advertisement Number of
Complaints
UNKNOWN Amount of Advertising 1
Debt Management Companies 1
40
Analysis
Complaints in the Report
Number of Number of Number of
Complaints Advertisements referred Advertisements about
to which complaints
were upheld wholly or
in part
HARMFUL 323 (0) 71 (0) 5 (0)
MISLEADING 626 (11) 163 (11) 14 (0)
OFFENSIVE 866 (0) 141 (0) 4 (0)
MISCELLANEOUS 113 (2) 27 (2) 0 (0)
1928 (13) 402 (13) 23 (0)
Year to Date 2002
Number of Number of Number of
Complaints Advertisements referred Advertisements about
to which complaints
were upheld wholly or
in part
HARMFUL 508 (0) 156 (0) 6 (0)
MISLEADING 896 (33) 374 (32) 26 (0)
OFFENSIVE 1176 (0) 311 (0) 8 (0)
MISCELLANEOUS 174 (4) 69 (4) 9 (0)
2759 (37) 913 (36) 49 (0)
The numbers in brackets indicate Text advertisments. They are extracted from, not additional
to, the overall numbers.
41
