Docstoc

ADVERTISING COMPLAINTS BULLETIN NO 13.doc

Document Sample
ADVERTISING COMPLAINTS BULLETIN NO 13.doc Powered By Docstoc
					         BULLETIN No: 13


         Telephone: 020 7306 7743
         Facsimile: 020 7306 7737




         Issued: Monday 12 May 2003




         Television


         Advertising


         Complaints




REPORT
How Television Advertising

is Controlled


The ITC is the statutory body created by the Broadcasting Act 1990 to
license and regulate commercial television in the UK. Its 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. The
ITC also has a duty under the Control of Misleading Advertisements
Regulations 1988 to consider complaints about misleading television
advertisements.

The ITC sets standards for television advertising through its
Advertising Standards Code. 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 UKTV. 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


      12   Summary of Other Complaints


      17   Analysis
  Complaints


  of Substance


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




          OFFENSIVE Wrigleys X-Cite - Dog
                    Abbot Mead Vickers BBDO
     COMPLAINTS FROM         860 viewers

          BACKGROUND         An advertisement for Wrigleys X-cite chewing gum showed a dishevelled
                             man waking up on his settee, the remains of the previous evening's food
                             around him. He began to retch and regurgitated a scruffy dog which then
                             shook itself wetly followed by a caption stating "avoid dog breath". The man
                             chewed some X-cite gum which made the dog disappear just before his
                             girlfriend came in to kiss him goodbye.

                   ISSUE     The advertisement had been cleared by the BACC with an "ex-kids"
                             restriction, intended to keep it away from programmes made for or with
                             particular appeal to younger children. A large number of viewers complained
                             that they felt disgusted and revolted by it. Others objected that the content of
                             the advertisement was in extremely bad taste.

           ASSESSMENT        The number of complaints that the ITC received was without precedent. On
                             hearing from the ITC of the viewer reaction, the advertising agency expressed
                             its concern and took steps to restrict transmission to after 9pm whilst
                             considering how the material could be appropriately edited. When the ITC
                             informed the agency that complaints were still being received in large
                             numbers, and it was clear that significant offence was being caused, the
                             Wrigley Company announced the withdrawal of the advertisement. The ITC
                             welcomed this decision, and noted the company's responsiveness to public
                             opinion. Taste is a subjective matter but the ITC - noting the unprecedented
                             number of complaints - regards this as an appropriate outcome. The
                             advertisement should not be shown again.

           CONCLUSION        Complaints upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 6.1.




                                                   1
   OFFENSIVE Scheduling of Advertising
             Channel U
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 viewer

   BACKGROUND     Channel U - a channel on which viewers vote for their choice of music videos
                  to be played - broadcast an advertisement for a sex chat line at around midday
                  on 19 March 2003.

          ISSUE   A viewer queried whether this was acceptable at that time of day.

    ASSESSMENT    Channel U explained that due to a technical failure material that had been
                  intended to be shown only after 10pm was shown during the day (the ITC
                  also received complaints about the unsuitability of the music videos shown at
                  the same time). Channel U apologised for the error and confirmed that it had
                  amended its systems to ensure that such a situation should never arise again.
                  The ITC noted this action but nevertheless judged that Channel U had
                  breached its rules by showing such material at the time it did.

    CONCLUSION    Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 7.3.7 and Rule 4.2.3 of the ITC
                  Rules on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising.



  MISLEADING flybe. british european Airways
             HDM Agency
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 competitor

   BACKGROUND     An advertisement for flybe.british european described it as "Northern
                  Ireland's original low fare airline".

          ISSUE   Easyjet complained that it was the original low fare airline in Northern
                  Ireland operating from Belfast since September 1998. flybe did not exist at
                  the time of Easyjet's launch and its parent, British European, was not a low
                  fare airline. It believed the advertisement was misleading.

    ASSESSMENT    The advertiser explained that flybe.british european was the consumer brand
                  for Jersey European Airways (JEA) which had operated out of Belfast City
                  Airport since February 1983. Jersey European became British European in
                  May 2000 and flybe.british european was launched in July 2002. The
                  advertiser believed that Jersey European Airways (UK) had consistently
                  offered low fares since 1995 via its consumer brands Jersey European, British
                  European and flybe.british european. It argued that the current brand flybe
                  incorporated British European and all corporate communications made it clear
                  that these brands were part of Jersey European Airways (UK) Ltd.
                  Furthermore, its marketing budget was used to inform the public about the
                  changes to the consumer brands whilst reassuring them of the continued
                  product quality and value of Jersey European.

                  The ITC noted these comments but considered that flybe.british european was
                  clearly a different commercial entity to Jersey European and that it was
                  misleading to attribute one brand's features and achievements to the other. It
                  considered that viewers in general were unlikely to associate the two brands
                  and conclude that flybe.british european was, in its own right, "Northern
                  Ireland's original low fare airline". The ITC judged the advertisement
                  misleading and required that it should not be re-shown in its current form.

    CONCLUSION    Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.1.



                                       2
  MISLEADING Kelloggs Nutrigrain Elevenses
             Leo Burnett
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 viewer

   BACKGROUND     An advertisement for Kellogg's Nutrigrain Elevenses bar described the
                  product as a "healthy snack" with "whole grain oats, wheat and fruit" and
                  ended by describing the product as "all good stuff".

          ISSUE   The viewer considered the sugar content of the product too high for it to be
                  described as healthy. Additionally, the ITC queried the "all good stuff" claim
                  when used in conjunction with the "healthy snack" description.

    ASSESSMENT    The BACC had taken advice from an independent nutritional consultant who
                  expressed concern about describing a product containing high levels of sugar
                  (38%) as "healthy". The BACC considered that the claim was justified,
                  however, because the bar was fortified with nutrigrains and iron, and
                  appeared to be lower in fat and contained more vitamins than some other
                  snacks. The BACC and its nutritional consultant considered that the basic
                  ingredients of the bar, consisting of whole grain oats, wheat and fruit was
                  sufficient to justify the line "all good stuff".     Kellogg's stated that the
                  advertisement sought to compare Nutrigrain Elevenses with other snack
                  products, and provided comparisons with other snacks such as a chocolate bar
                  and a bacon sandwich to support its claim. As a reinforcing point, it also
                  compared the sugar content of the Elevenses bar with fruit, stating that the bar
                  had no more sugar than a portion of some fruit, eg. an orange.

                  The ITC acknowledged that there was no intention on the part of Kellogg's to
                  mislead. However, it shared the concerns expressed by the complainant and
                  the nutritional consultant about the unqualified use of the term "healthy". It
                  considered that the public generally understood foods such as fruit,
                  vegetables, salad, fish etc. to be "healthy", and not processed snacks.
                  However the ITC noted, in the light of the evidence supplied by Kellogg's,
                  that the advertising aimed to demonstrate that Nutrigrain Elevenses is
                  "healthy" in comparison to some other snacks - in other words "healthier".

                  Whilst the ITC accepted this was a valid aim, the ITC concluded that,
                  particularly with its references to the product's natural ingredients, the
                  advertisement had made it insufficiently clear that

                  a) the term "healthy" was being used in a comparative sense

                  b) the comparison was with other processed snacks and not necessarily with
                  traditionally "healthy" foodstuffs

                  and was thus capable of misleading viewers as to the true nature of the
                  principal claim.

                  The ITC further judged that the term "all good stuff", whilst it might in some
                  circumstances be a legitimate reference to the substantially natural basic
                  ingredients, was not acceptable in conjunction with the absolute claim
                  "healthy", as it appeared to offer the claim unqualified support.

    CONCLUSION    Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 8.3.1.




                                        3
  MISLEADING Best Direct
             Hangaway
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 viewer

   BACKGROUND     Best Direct broadcast an advertisement for a device called Hangaway on
                  which to hang clothes after they had been washed.

          ISSUE   A viewer complained that the advertisement gave the impression that using
                  the Hangaway to hang clothes would do away with the need to iron them.

    ASSESSMENT    Among the claims made in the advertising were:

                     "you're going to say goodbye to ironing forever"
                     "doesn't it make sense to have a machine for ironing?" - implying that
                      Hangaway does the job of an iron
                     that it is better than a tumble dryer.

                  Best Direct defended the advertising, saying that it was well known that
                  people hung their clothes up to dry to avoid ironing, and that Hangaway was a
                  convenient device for doing this. In its view, hanging clothes on Hangaway
                  after washing them would enable creases to drop out and would leave them
                  ready to wear. It did not intend to denigrate irons or tumble dryers as
                  products, but simply wanted to say that using Hangaway was an easier and
                  more convenient way of achieving the same end result.

                  The ITC accepted that hanging clothes up to dry would probably leave them
                  less crumpled and would make the task of ironing easier to that extent. The
                  advertising, however, was claiming significantly more than this, saying that
                  using Hangaway achieved the same result as using an iron and could take the
                  place of one. The ITC agreed with the complainant that the advertising for
                  the product was claiming more than could be achieved with it.

    CONCLUSION    Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.1.



  MISLEADING BT - reconnection
             Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 viewer

   BACKGROUND     An advertisement for BT stated "weekday calls to mobiles are cheaper with
                  BT Together than with cable, so now you can enjoy them for longer".

          ISSUE   A viewer complained that daytime calls to mobiles with ntl's mobile call plan
                  were cheaper than with BT Together. He felt the advertisement was
                  misleading.

    ASSESSMENT    The advertiser explained that it was unaware of the mobile call plan cited by
                  the complainant because it was not mentioned in ntl's tariff guide or on ntl's
                  website (ntl's two main sources of pricing information). The advertiser used a
                  wide range of resources to gather data about competitor offerings, including
                  an external agency specifically concerned with tracking competitor
                  information, but argued that its ignorance of this particular product was
                  understandable if ntl's main sources of information failed to mention it.
                  Nevertheless, the advertiser was prepared to amend its advertisement.

                  In light of the information about ntl's mobile call plan the BACC
                  acknowledged that the advertisement was misleading and planned to discuss
                  the necessary amendments with the advertiser.
                                       4
                  The ITC accepted that the advertiser had gone to reasonable lengths to check
                  competitors' pricing, but agreed with the BACC's assessment. It judged the
                  advertisement was misleading and required that it should not be re-
                  transmitted in its current form.

    CONCLUSION    Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.1.




  MISLEADING Chicago Town Pizza
             BDH TBWA
COMPLAINTS FROM   2 viewers

   BACKGROUND     An advertisement for Chicago Town Pizza claimed it was "America's best-
                  selling frozen pizza".

          ISSUE   Viewers complained that the best-selling claim was false because Chicago
                  Town Pizza was not sold in the United States.

    ASSESSMENT    The manufacturer, Schwan, explained that although this particular brand was
                  not sold in the US, it used exactly the same ingredients and production
                  processes to make pizzas sold under five different brand names for the US
                  market.

                  The BACC supported this substantiation and pointed out that the terms of the
                  claim were made clear by superimposed text stating "this pizza is sold under
                  other brand names too" and "manufactured in the UK".

                  The ITC learned that in error only some of the advertisements using the best-
                  selling claim carried the superimposed text. The BACC confirmed that the
                  advertising agency would reinstate the superimposed text when the
                  commercials were next shown.

                  The ITC considered that the disclaimer was necessary to clarify the terms of
                  the claim - without it the advertising was misleading. It noted that the
                  superimposed text would be reinstated and required that it should feature in
                  all advertisements that made the same best-selling claim.

    CONCLUSION    Complaints upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.3.




                                       5
  MISLEADING Homebase - Furniture £50 Offer
             Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO
COMPLAINTS FROM   3 viewers

   BACKGROUND     An advertisement for Homebase showed different items of furniture. A
                  voiceover stated "all these are only £50 each and there's more in store like this
                  Murano table and chairs". The advertisement closed with "hurry while stocks
                  last".

          ISSUE   Viewers complained the stores they visited claimed the items had never been
                  in stock and one viewer said none of the items were available in Scotland.
                  They felt the advertisement was misleading.

    ASSESSMENT    Homebase explained that the advertised items were available in every store
                  but as it was a clearance promotion it was possible that some stores had sold
                  out. It confirmed that one of the four stores in Edinburgh and the Hamilton
                  store had sold out by the time the advertisement was transmitted. It said there
                  was no intention to advertise a product that was not available but the low
                  prices meant the stock sold in a short period of time.

                  The advertiser had told the BACC that furniture was available in all stores.

                  The ITC judged that viewers would expect the advertised items to be
                  available at the beginning of the promotion. Given that at least two of the
                  stores did not carry any of the advertised stock at the time the commercial
                  was broadcast the ITC judged that it was misleading. It required that the
                  advertisement should not be shown again in its current form.

    CONCLUSION    Complaints upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.3.



  MISLEADING Shop on TV
             Principal Secrets
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 viewer

   BACKGROUND     Shop on TV broadcast an advertisement for the beauty product Principal
                  Secrets. At the end of the advertisement it announced that additional items
                  would be sent free of charge to customers who called to order within thirty
                  minutes of the advertising being shown.

          ISSUE   A viewer complained that the advertising was broadcast frequently and
                  always ended with the same offer. He believed it was misleading for the
                  advertising to encourage customers to call quickly in the belief that they
                  would receive something extra which, it seemed, was actually available all the
                  time.

    ASSESSMENT    Shop on TV apologised for the error. It explained that as a result of a
                  scheduling error it had shown an incorrect version of the advertisement. It
                  would ensure that in future the correct version - which did not include the call
                  to order within thirty minutes - was shown. The ITC judged that the original
                  version of the advertisement amounted to a false incentive to buy and that it
                  could mislead viewers as the bonus offer was in fact available at all times.

    CONCLUSION    Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.1.




                                        6
  MISLEADING Shop Smart
             Velform Hair Grow
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 viewer

   BACKGROUND     An advertisement for Velform Hair Grow, a hair care product designed to
                  encourage hair growth, was shown on Shop Smart.

          ISSUE   Last year the ITC upheld a complaint against a teleshopping channel for
                  broadcasting an advertisement for Velform Hair Grow on the grounds that it
                  was misleading (Advertising Complaints Report, Bulletin No 1, October
                  2002).

                  A viewer reported that a similar version of the advertisement was showing on
                  Shop Smart.

    ASSESSMENT    Although Shop Smart believed that its version complied with the ITC
                  Advertising Code, the channel decided to remove the advertisement from its
                  schedule as soon as the ITC referred it to its previous adjudication.

                  Shop Smart provided the ITC with the same clinical studies that had been
                  given during the earlier investigation of the advertisement. These studies
                  referred to a clinical trial involving only 17 volunteers and showed that the
                  "treatment had an action on the improvement of the state and the appearance
                  of hair for 76% of the panel". However, the advertisement had claimed
                  "hundreds of people had found [Velform] 100% effective in treating hair
                  loss".

                  Further claims in the commercial stated that it was "the only ecological
                  product of its kind", that it was "all natural", that it would stop hair falling out
                  after two months of regular use and that new hair would start growing by the
                  third month, enabling people to "recover the full head of hair you thought
                  you'd lost forever". As with the other advertisement, the Shop Smart version
                  featured men and women with long, thick hair and the ITC considered that
                  these images along with the audio claims gave a clear and overriding
                  impression that the product would produce the same results as those
                  illustrated for anybody who used it. It did not consider the evidence supplied
                  by Shop Smart was adequate to support the claims made.

                  The ITC noted that Shop Smart had removed the advertisement from air but
                  judged that it was misleading at the time of broadcast. It required that it
                  should not be shown again in its current form.

    CONCLUSION    Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.1.




                                         7
  MISLEADING Travel House
             Teletext
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 viewer

   BACKGROUND     Text advertising for Travelhouse offered a 14-night, self-catering holiday in
                  Benidorm for £119 based on two people sharing accommodation.

          ISSUE   A viewer who called to enquire about the offer was told that the price was in
                  fact based on four people sharing.

    ASSESSMENT    Teletext assured the ITC that this had been a genuine error and that the
                  advertiser had taken steps to correct its advertising as soon as the viewer had
                  made it aware of its mistake. Nevertheless, misleading advertising had been
                  broadcast.

    CONCLUSION    Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.1.




  MISLEADING TV Travel Shop Channel


COMPLAINTS FROM   Staff monitoring

   BACKGROUND     While investigating a complaint about a separate issue, the ITC noticed that
                  TV Travel Shop was making claims such as: "all of these amazing discounts
                  are only available right here so don't even bother looking at any other travel
                  agents".

          ISSUE   The ITC considered that viewers were likely to understand this to mean that
                  they did not need to check prices elsewhere because TV Travel Shop was
                  offering holidays at the lowest prices available.

    ASSESSMENT    TV Travel Shop explained that it negotiated exclusive deals with cruise and
                  tour operators for limited periods so that the prices or savings it offered
                  during that time would not be available to any other travel agent in the market
                  place. It admitted, however, that there was nothing to stop competitors
                  lowering their prices to beat the ones advertised by TV Travel Shop. In such
                  circumstances, TV Travel Shop would lower its prices to beat those of its
                  competitors, although it would depend on a customer notifying them of the
                  lower price that was available elsewhere.

                  The ITC's rules require that absolute claims of lowest price be treated with
                  caution as they can be invalidated while still on air by changes in the market
                  or the actions of competitors. Here the ITC considered that TV Travel Shop
                  had failed to substantiate that its prices would always be the cheapest.
                  Although TV Travel Shop would lower its prices to beat those of other
                  agents, viewers would not necessarily have understood this from the claim.
                  During the investigation, TV Travel Shop took action to amend its original
                  pricing claim. The ITC required that the advertising should not be shown
                  again in its original form.

    CONCLUSION    Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.3.




                                        8
  MISLEADING Vodafone/Orange (Picture Messaging)
             J. Walter Thompson/Mother
COMPLAINTS FROM   1 viewer

   BACKGROUND     Advertisements for Vodafone and Orange introduced the new photo-
                  messaging mobile phones. The Orange commercial offered "free photo
                  messaging for all Orange customers". Onscreen text warned "compatible
                  handset required". The Vodafone commercial showed people sending and
                  receiving photo messages whilst onscreen text stated "service limitations,
                  terms and conditions apply".

          ISSUE   A viewer complained that as it was only possible to send and receive photo
                  messages if both sender and recipient were on the same network and as this
                  had not been mentioned in the advertisement, it was misleading.

    ASSESSMENT    To avoid complicated and lengthy disclaimers BACC concluded "service
                  limitations apply" was sufficient to both alert viewers to existence of
                  restrictions and provide consistent advice to advertisers. It did not agree that
                  the advertising was misleading.

                  Prior to adopting the generic wording it had approved an Orange
                  advertisement with "compatible handset required", "Terms and conditions
                  apply" and an audio reference to the advertised free trial being available to
                  "all Orange customers". The ITC acknowledged this went some way to
                  warning customers but it did not address the significant condition that Orange
                  customers could only send and receive photo messages within the Orange
                  network.

                  In the Vodafone advertisement, people were shown sending and receiving
                  messages freely. Vodafone believed the phrase "service limitations apply"
                  was understood in the context of network coverage and that customers were
                  likely to realise that use of this particular feature was restricted to only one
                  network.

                  The ITC did not consider that the three words in the superimposed text
                  provided sufficient explanation of the limitations.

                  The BACC said that Vodafone had made arrangements with O2, T-mobile,
                  Orange and 3 so that Vodafone customers could send photo messages to
                  compatible phones on these networks and vice versa. It was unable to
                  confirm whether similar arrangements had been made between the other
                  network providers. The ITC acknowledged that this and other developments
                  would affect the content of future advertisements and the disclaimers. It
                  nevertheless judged that both the Vodafone and Orange advertisements were
                  misleading at the time of broadcast and required that future advertising made
                  all significant limitations clear.

    CONCLUSION    Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.3.




                                        9
  MISLEADING Travel City Direct & Choice Air Holidays
             Teletext
COMPLAINTS FROM   2 viewers

   BACKGROUND     1) An advertisement for Travel City Direct offered holidays from £309
                  including "basic third party car ins."
                  2) An advertisement for Choice Air Holidays included an offer of holidays
                  from £99, including "CDW" [collision damage waiver].

                  Both advertisements stated that a refundable deposit might be required if
                  "optional all-inclusive insurance cover" was not taken. An interleaf
                  information page within the Florida section provided further details about the
                  fly-drive offers and included statements that "Some operators may require a
                  large deposit where further insurance is not purchased" and "viewers holding
                  independent insurance should be able to obtain the advertised offer without
                  further payment".

          ISSUE   The complaints concerned pricing and disclosure of key offer information in
                  respect of advertising for Florida fly-drive holidays:
                  1) Travel City Direct: the viewer complained that he had been told that he
                  would either have to pay a further £400 for additional car insurance cover or
                  provide a refundable deposit of £3,000. He believed that the advertisement
                  was misleading in not making these additional charges clear.
                  2) Choice Air Holidays: the viewer claimed that he had been told that in order
                  to take up the offer at the price advertised, he would need to buy the
                  advertiser's own insurance, costing £6,000. He wished to use his own cover
                  and felt that the advertisement was misleading for not properly alerting
                  viewers to this restriction.

    ASSESSMENT    Teletext explained that its copy conditions required that advertised headline
                  prices for Florida fly-drive packages must include the cost of car hire and
                  motor insurance (and any other related compulsory payments). The aim was
                  to ensure that prices were transparent and to prevent advertisers seeking to
                  minimise headline prices by e.g. separating out the cost of car insurance.
                  Teletext also explained that car insurance was not legally compulsory in
                  Florida. Most advertisers chose to include a minimum level of insurance in
                  their advertising in order to encourage viewers to take at least basic cover.
                  The level of insurance included was, however, a matter for the advertiser.
                  Fully comprehensive insurance was usually available as an option and in
                  many cases viewers would wish to take out this higher level of cover.

                  Section 5.3.2 of the Advertising Standards Code requires that indications of
                  actual or comparative prices, or the manner in which prices are to be
                  calculated, must be accurate and must not mislead by omission, undue
                  emphasis or distortion. Teletext explained that its own copy conditions
                  reinforced this by requiring that offers must be available as shown. Its spot
                  checks indicated that 'basic cover' offers on the Florida fly-drive section were
                  generally available as advertised, without upgrading to comprehensive
                  insurance. Whilst some companies made a feature of offering upgrading this
                  was a legitimate option rather than a requirement. The ITC carried out a
                  number of spot checks on similar fly-drive offers from Travel City Direct. As
                  in the case of the complainant, the prices quoted included fully
                  comprehensive insurance (rather than the basic third party cover advertised)
                  and were significantly more expensive than the headline price listed on
                  Teletext. Sales staff stated that it was not general company policy to sell the
                  holidays with only the basic third party insurance mentioned in the
                  advertising. The ITC judged that since the prices advertised did not accurately
                  reflect the price for which Travel City Direct were normally prepared to sell
                  the holiday, the advertising was in breach of Section 5.3.1 of the Code.

                                       10
                   In relation to the issue of deposits, Teletext explained that at the time of the
                   complaints, large refundable deposits (which could range up to £6,000) were
                   taken by some advertisers in cases where the customer did not wish to take
                   the advertised level of cover and did not have adequate cover of their own.
                   Such deposits were designed to encourage customers not to travel under-
                   insured and to provide a settlement fund in case of an accident. The taking of
                   such deposits was in practice quite rare. In the case of the Choice Air
                   Holidays offer the sum mentioned by the complainant had in fact been such a
                   refundable deposit rather than an insurance premium. Following the
                   complaints, Teletext undertook a review of its copy conditions for Florida fly-
                   drives and in particular the practice of taking large deposits. It explained that
                   advertisers were now prevented from offering fly-drive offers that might
                   involve refundable deposits. It had also added a requirement that advertising
                   must not refer to the levying of large deposits on customers.

                   Section 5.2.3 requires that advertising must make clear all important
                   limitations and qualifications. The ITC noted the steps taken by Teletext to
                   prevent further issues arising concerning the taking of refundable deposits.
                   However, it also noted that the two advertisements complained of had not
                   alerted viewers to the significant size of the deposits mentioned. The details
                   on the interleaf information page, whilst potentially helpful, had been
                   insufficiently detailed and had been too infrequent (appearing only once
                   amongst 60 or so advertising slides/pages). It judged that the size of the
                   deposits had been a key piece of information which should have been
                   available to viewers. Failure to provide this information had led to the
                   advertising being in breach of 5.2.3.

      CONCLUSION   Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.3.1 and 5.2.3.


MISCELLANEOUS Separation of Advertisements
              Living TV
 COMPLAINTS FROM   4 viewers

     BACKGROUND    With the interactive capabilities of digital television, an "icon" can be
                   displayed during a programme or advertisement on which viewers can click to
                   link to additional material or commercial services.

                   The ITC has published guidance for broadcasters on the use of interactivity.
                   One of the assumptions behind the guidelines is that advertising and
                   programming should be kept separate, as reflected generally in the ITC Rules
                   on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising. Two of the guidelines'
                   requirements are that icons displayed during programmes must not carry
                   advertisers' messages or branding and that initial interactive supplements
                   accessible from programmes must not be wholly or mainly commercial in
                   nature.

           ISSUE   Four viewers complained about interactive icons from commercials appearing
                   during Living TV's digital broadcast of the programme CSI on 3 March 2003.

     ASSESSMENT    Flextech Television - on behalf of Living TV- confirmed that icons intended
                   for interactive advertisements had appeared during CSI. It apologised for the
                   lapse, which it had measures in place to prevent but which on this occasion
                   had been the result of human error. The ITC recognised that the situation had
                   not arisen intentionally but nevertheless judged that the complaints should be
                   upheld.

      CONCLUSION   Complaints upheld. Breach of Rule 3.1 of the ITC Rules on the Amount and
                   Scheduling of Advertising and its Guidance to Broadcasters on Interactive
                   Television Services.

                                         11
            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 Auto Trader                                                  1
          BMW Z4 - Soft Top                                          1
          BT Broadband - Movies                                      2
          Cancer Research UK - Photo Mirror                          1
          Closer Magazine                                            1
          COI/DTLR - road safety motorbike                           1
          Cow & Gate Milk - Crop Circle                              1
          Dairylea Double Dunkers - want some                        1
          Food Safety Promotion Board - food poisoning               1
          Glade Touch n Fresh                                        1
          Goodfellas pizza                                           1
          Halifax - Bollywood                                        1
          Hasbro GI Joe - Cobra                                      3
          Kelloggs Fruit Winders                                     1
          KFC - Easter bunnies                                       1
          Mattel - Barbie/Shelley Jumpy Castle                       1
          McDonalds Happy - Pinochio                                 1
          Nurofen For Children                                       2
          Pampers Kandoo toilet Wipes                                1
          Pfizer Calpol - talc                                       2
          Shreddies                                                  1
          Sprite                                                     1
          Sure for Men - Kung Fu                                     1
          Tango - Barrel                                             7
          TFL; Motorcycle Safety                                     1
          Vauxhall Zafira - School                                   2

                       12
                  Volvic - caveman                          3
                  Yellow Pages - Haircut                    1



                  Product or Advertisement          Number of
                                                    Complaints
MISCELLANEOUS Auction World Product                          2
                  Cheestrings - Calcium                      1
                  Citroen - stamps                           1
                  Clerical Medical                           1
                  Dealforfree.com                            1
                  DETR - Think Speed                         1
                  First Plus                                 1
                  Ideal World HS - Product                   1
                  National Accident Helpline                 1
                  Nissan X-Trail                             1
                  Yellow Pages - office                      1



                  Product or Advertisement          Number of
                                                    Complaints
    MISLEADING AA Insurance - Twin Cars                      2
                  Ab Force Belt                              6
                  Abbey National                             1
                  Admiral Insurance                          1
                  Air-O-Space Blow Up Mattress               1
                  Argos                                      1
                  Argos - Voucher                            1
                  Asda - Rollbacks                           1
                  Auction World Product                      3
                  Barclays Brand                             1
                  Bid-up.tv                                  1
                  Bid-up.tv product                          5
                  BNFL Science Museum                        2
                  BT Broadband - burst pipe                  1
                  BT Broadband - Movies                      1
                  BUPA - backcare                            1
                  BUPA - Mrs Hunter                          1
                  Camelot Synd - Nurses                      1
                  Carcraft                                   1
                  Cheestrings - Calcium                      4
                  Citroen Xsara - Picasso                    1
                  Clairol Herbal Essences                    1
                  COI - Child Tax Credit                     2
                  COI/Inland Revenue - Tax Credit            1
                  Comet - Bursting                           1
                  Conduit Directory Inqs 118888              3
                  Daily Telegraph                            1
                               13
Direct Line - motor insurance            1
Dixon Motors                             1
Esure - Careless Driver                  1
Hewlett Packard                          1
Holland & Barrett Nature's Way Sale      1
Homebase                                 1
Homebase Easter Sale                     1
Ideal World HS - Product                 3
Instant Holidays - TEXT                  1
Johnsons Baby Bath                       1
Launa Windows                            1
Lloyds TSB - Current Acc 3.2%            1
Maybelline Watershine Lip Colour         1
MBNA Credit Card                         1
McDonalds - McFlurry                     1
McDonalds Happy - Friends                2
Natwest Telephony                        6
Norton Finance                           1
Orange Just Talk                         1
Personal Injury Helpline                 1
Pizza Hut - £9.99 family deal            2
QVC Product                              1
Round Up - Weedkiller                    1
Royal & Sun Alliance                     1
Safestyle UK                             2
Scottish Executive - Voting              2
Scottish Power                           1
Scottish Widows - lighthouse             4
Shop Smart Product                       1
Simply Shopping Product                  1
Sky Trailers/Promotions                  1
Sky Viewing Card                         1
SMS Joke of the Day                      1
Specsavers - Spectacles/Contact Lenses   1
Splenda - moon                           1
Straight Shootin' Golf System            1
Syndol - Headache                        1
TellSell Product                         2
Tesco                                    1
Time Life - Custom Woodworking           1
Time Life - The Bible                    1
Time Life Music- Power of Love           1
TV Warehouse Product                     2
Unknown Product                          5
Vector Direct - Steam Buggie             1
Video Release - Lilo & Stitch            1
Vodafone - lost in thought               1
William Hill - TEXT                      1
             14
           Wrigleys Extra Thin Ice - Atoll              1
           Yes Car Credit                               1



           Product or Advertisement             Number of
                                                Complaints
OFFENSIVE Adidas A3                                      1
           Adv Hair Studio - Healey                      1
           Anadin Extra - Police                         1
           Auto Trader                                   4
           Burger King - Bedtime Story                   1
           Burger King Tex Mex - Tour                    1
           Cancer Research UK - Photo Mirror             3
           Carling Black Label - Frustration             1
           Cheestrings - Calcium                         3
           Citroen - stamps                              2
           Citroen C5 - Medusa                           2
           Daz - Grubby Affair                           1
           Daz - Surprise Prescription                   2
           Debenhams - sale/courtroom                    1
           Domestos Ox - Toilet                          1
           Egg - Fingers in Ear                          1
           Eurostar - J'Aime                             1
           Feva Tech Deck Dudes                          1
           Going Places - Booker                         1
           Health Promotion Agency - Alcohol             1
           Heineken Premium                              2
           Huggies Pull Ups                              1
           Iceland - Schoolboy                           1
           John Smith - Mum                              1
           Kelloggs Special K (Red Berries)              1
           KFC - Soul Food                               1
           Knorr Recipe Kits - Quiet night in            1
           Life Line Direct                              2
           Magnum 7 Sins                                 4
           Marmite - Lifeguard kiss                      6
           McDonalds Happy - Friends                     1
           Muddy Fox Mountain Bikes                      4
           New Woman                                     1
           News of the World - Underwear               10
           NSPCC - John                                  1
           Nurofen For Children                          1
           Pampers Kandoo toilet Wipes                   1
           Passionata Lingerie                           1
           PG Tips                                       2
           Playtex - Magic Feeling                       1
           Pot Noodle Posh - Poverty                   16
           RSPCA                                         1
                        15
                       RSPCA - kitten                                                   1
                       Safestyle - Cannon & Ball                                        2
                       Shreddies                                                        4
                       Siemens Mobile Phone                                             1
                       Sky Trailers/Promotions                                          1
                       Sony Playstation 2 - Primal                                      4
                       Spontex Second Skin                                              1
                       T Mobile - Airport                                               3
                       TFL; Motorcycle Safety                                           3
                       The Sun - lovely pair                                            2
                       Thorpe Park - Nemesis inferno                                    1
                       Unknown Product                                                  2
                       Vauxhall Astra - Rollercoaster                                   1
                       Velvet Toilet Tissue                                            12
                       Video Release - The Osbournes                                    2
                       Video Release - The Sum of all Fears                             1
                       Volvic - caveman                                                 1
                       Waitrose                                                         1
                       Walkers Crisps (Comic Relief)                                    1
                       Wrigleys Extra Thin Ice - Atoll                                  1
                       Wrigleys X-Cite - Dog                                            1
                       Yellow Pages - Haircut                                           1
                       Yorkie                                                           8
                       Yorkie Girl - Builder                                            1

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

                       Product or Advertisement                              Number of
                                                                             Complaints
        HARMFUL Debt Management Companies                                             1
                       Scheduling of Advertising                                      1

                       Product or Advertisement                              Number of
                                                                             Complaints
MISCELLANEOUS Amount of Advertising                                                   5
                       Miscellaneous comments                                         5
                       Noise                                                          2

                       Product or Advertisement                              Number of
                                                                             Complaints
      OFFENSIVE Miscellaneous comments                                                3
                       Nudity                                                         1




                                     16
                 Analysis


                                               COMPLAINTS IN THE REPORT


                         Number of          Number of                Number of
                         complaints     advertisements     advertisements about
                                            referred to       which complaints
                                                             were upheld wholly
                                                                      or in part
      HARMFUL          45       (0)       31       (0)            1         (0)
    MISLEADING        131       (3)       85       (3)           14         (1)
     OFFENSIVE       1018       (0)       69       (0)            3         (0)
MISCELLANEOUS          29       (0)       16       (0)            3         (0)
     UNKNOWN            0       (0)        0       (0)            0         (0)
                     1223       (3)      201       (3)           21         (1)




                                                          YEAR TO DATE 2003


                         Number of          Number of                Number of
                         complaints     advertisements     advertisements about
                                            referred to       which complaints
                                                             were upheld wholly
                                                                      or in part
      HARMFUL         341       (0)      161       (0)           13         (0)
    MISLEADING        743      (21)      478      (21)           49         (7)
     OFFENSIVE       2683       (0)      424       (0)           26         (0)
MISCELLANEOUS         138       (3)       90       (3)           12         (1)
     UNKNOWN           12       (0)       12       (0)            1         (0)
                     3917      (24)     1165      (24)          101         (8)

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




                               17

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:16
posted:3/30/2011
language:English
pages:20
suchufp suchufp http://
About