Advertising_Complaints_August_2000

Document Sample
Advertising_Complaints_August_2000 Powered By Docstoc
					         AUGUST 2000
         EMBARGOED
         Not for use before 00.01 hours
         on Monday 2 October 2000




         Television


         Advertising


         Complaints




REPORT
How Television Advertising

is Controlled


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

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

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

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




       1   Complaints of Substance


       9   Summary of Other Complaints


      16   Analysis
Complaints

 of Substance


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


             MISLEADING      NYTOL
                             Advertising agency: PTK Partnership

          COMPLAINT FROM     Staff Intervention
                             1 viewer

     NATURE OF COMPLAINT     A viewer queried whether it was acceptable for the clock that appears on the
                             screen throughout GMTV's transmissions to obscure the text associated with
                             the Nytol sponsorship credits. The specific instance referred to occurred on 14
                             July.

              ASSESSMENT     Rule 2.3 of the ITC Code of Programme Sponsorship requires that
                             sponsorship credits must comply with the ITC Code of Advertising Standards
                             and Practice. The advertising rules require that any text which is required to
                             be included in an advertisement must be clearly legible and they direct
                             licensees to detailed guidance on what constitutes legibility. The text in the
                             Nytol sponsor credit was required to be included by statutory regulations
                             governing the sale of medical products and therefore the legibility rule and
                             guidelines applied. GMTV explained that the placing of the clock was an
                             error and immediately rectified the situation. However, until they took action
                             the legibility of the text had been compromised, and the ITC therefore upheld
                             the complaint.

                             During the course of investigating the complaint ITC staff queried the size of
                             the text. GMTV had received evidence from the production company that the
                             text complied with ITC requirements on text size. However, the ITC's own
                             measurement of the text indicated that it was below the minimum standards
                             and therefore required the size to be amended.

                  DECISION   Complaint upheld. Placing of the clock and text size amended.




                                              1
      MISLEADING      RED HOT EURO



   COMPLAINTS FROM    1 viewer
                      1 competitor

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   A freeview (an unencrypted trailer, normally run before the start of an
                      encrypted subscription service) for Red Hot Films and Red Hot Euro, both
                      adult channels available through u>direct films, stated that viewers could
                      subscribe for "only £2.49 for one night". A competitor (The Adult Channel)
                      and a viewer complained that this claim was misleading, as subscribers were
                      also charged a registration fee of £12. This was not mentioned in the
                      freeview. The Adult Channel also believed that, rather than an entire night's
                      viewing, subscribers only received a single showing of a particular film for
                      £2.49.

        ASSESSMENT    After R&R Productions Limited for Red Hot Films and Red Hot Euro were
                      made aware of the complaints, they amended the freeview to include the £12
                      registration fee. They explained that, although existing subscribers to
                      u>direct did not need to pay again to register for Red Hot Films and Red Hot
                      Euro, customers who did not already subscribe to u>direct were charged the
                      registration fee of £12 plus £2.49 for their first night's viewing. Subsequent
                      nights were charged at £2.49 per night. The ITC welcomed their decision to
                      amend, but noted that the freeviews were available to anyone who subscribed
                      to Sky Digital. For the wider group of viewers who subscribed to Sky Digital
                      but not to u>direct the pricing claim made in the freeview would not have
                      been true. Therefore the ITC judged it to be misleading. This part of the
                      complaint was upheld.

                      In relation to the second part of the complaint R&R Productions confirmed
                      that they were offering an entire night's viewing rather than just single
                      showings of films. This part of the complaint was not upheld.

           DECISION   Complaints upheld in part.




      MISLEADING      ROTUNDA FUN PARK
                      Advertising agency: Steven M Scheuregger

    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   Advertising for Folkestone's Rotunda featured fairground rides and claimed
                      entry was £9.99 for adults and £6.99 "for kids". The complainant objected
                      that the lower price applied, not to all children, but only to people under 1.35
                      metres tall. When she visited the funfair with her 8 year old grandchildren,
                      they were expected to pay full price because they were taller.

        ASSESSMENT    The ITC found that the complainant was right. The agency explained that
                      height restrictions applied to some of the rides and taller children were
                      charged the adult rate because they could use all of them. They said that,
                      because the commercial was only 20 seconds long, it would not have been
                      practical to add a text explanation of the pricing policy.




                                       2
                      The ITC concluded that the claim was likely to mislead and did not accept the
                      agency's argument as a justification for a misleading message. The ITC does
                      not accept that text which contradicts a misleading headline claim is an
                      adequate remedy and it appeared to the ITC that this would have been the
                      situation in this case.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld. The ITC asked the BACC to remove the advertising.




      MISLEADING      BODYVIBES – PIN24



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   An advertisement, on teleshopping channel PIN24, for an exercise device
                      called Bodyvibes, claimed the product could bring about weight and inch loss
                      without the user changing diet or exercising. Numerous testimonials were
                      featured in the advertisement from people who claimed to have lost pounds
                      and inches by wearing the device, including one from a man who claimed to
                      have lost 10lb in three weeks.       Two of the advertisement’s presenters
                      compared the fat burning benefits of the device to various exercises, including
                      a 50 minute walk and a 35 minute bike ride, and claimed that wearing the
                      device burnt 90% more calories than when not wearing it. One interviewee
                      stated that using the device over the period of 1 year would expend enough
                      calories to lose 27½1b. The complainant, who understood weight loss could
                      be achieved only through a calorie controlled diet, considered the advertising
                      misleading.

        ASSESSMENT    The licensee provided the ITC with substantiation in the form of product
                      trials, a number of articles and testimonial affidavits. The ITC noted the
                      licensee had not obtained suitably qualified independent medical advice on
                      the safety and efficacy of the device, as required by rule 35(b) of the ITC
                      Code of Advertising Standards and Practice.

                       In addition, the ITC referred the licensee to Rule 35(c) of the Code which
                      prohibits promises or predictions of specific weight loss. Where specific
                      amounts of weight are claimed to have been lost by an individual, the amount
                      of weight lost and the period over which it was lost should be compatible with
                      generally accepted good medical and dietary practice. The testimonial
                      claiming one subject had lost 10lb in 3 weeks and the claim that 27½1b of
                      weight loss could be achieved within one year both contravened this rule.

                      The ITC judged the advertised claims had not been supported and the
                      advertisement had significantly breached rule 35 of The ITC Code of
                      Advertising Standards and Practice.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld. The ITC instructed PIN24 not to broadcast the feature
                      again.




                                       3
      MISLEADING      EPILSTOP – PIN24



                      Staff Intervention

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   An advertisement on a teleshopping channel, PIN24, for a hair removal
                      system called Epilstop, claimed the system prevented hair re-growth for up to
                      four months and could effectively remove male facial and body hair. The
                      ITC questioned the claims.

        ASSESSMENT    PIN 24 provided information they believed supported the re-growth claims.
                      They could supply no evidence demonstrating the system's effect on male
                      facial and body hair and agreed to remove these claims from the advertising.

                      The ITC noted the documentation provided consisted mainly of ingredient
                      lists and product safety data. There was no evaluation of the system's effect
                      on hair re-growth. The ITC was concerned by the lack of evidence and
                      concluded that the advertising was misleading. While welcoming the
                      broadcaster's action in removing the claims about male hair removal, it
                      instructed PIN 24 not to broadcast the commercial again until all references to
                      hair re-growth were also removed.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld.




      MISLEADING      X-FAT
                      Advertising agency: Sark

    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   The advertisement was set in a cocktail bar setting, and featured Daley
                      Thompson walking through the room, talking to guests and the camera. A
                      telephone number was given on screen for viewers to call for a free sample
                      and entry into a prize draw. The advertisement made no direct claims about
                      what the product was designed to do. It even contained a disclaimer which
                      said "X-Fat has not been proven to aid weight loss". Nevertheless, the
                      complainant considered that what appeared on screen amounted to an
                      unjustified claim about the product.

        ASSESSMENT    The BACC had approved the advertisement for transmission on the basis that
                      it did not make any claims about what the product did. In the ITC's
                      judgement, however, the advertisement did imply weight loss capabilities.
                      The disclaimer seemed to draw attention to this possibility, and the name of
                      the product seemed to imply the same. No satisfactory evidence had been
                      provided to support any weight loss capabilities. The ITC agreed that the
                      advertising in its present form was not acceptable and required it to be
                      removed from transmission.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld.




                                       4
       OFFENSIVE      SCHEDULING



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   On the 3 June Central Television transmitted an advertisement for "Sure for
                      men" during the children's programme SMTV. A viewer queried whether
                      this was suitable for transmission when children would be watching.

        ASSESSMENT    The commercial was one of several which had been cleared by the BACC
                      with the restriction that it must not be shown in or around programmes
                      designed specifically for children. Carlton sales, who handle scheduling on
                      behalf of Central, explained that the oversight was due to human error, and
                      apologised for any distress.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld. As there was no evidence that this was other than an
                      isolated incident, no further regulatory action was indicated on this occasion.



       OFFENSIVE      SCHEDULING



   COMPLAINTS FROM    2 viewers

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   On Granada on the 20 May at 18:35 an advertisement for Maxibon Ice Cream
                      was shown. The complainants objected to the showing of this advertisement
                      at a time when children were likely to be watching.

        ASSESSMENT    The advertisement contained references to condoms and the BACC had
                      placed a post 21:00 timing restriction on its broadcast. Granada said that the
                      advertisement had been wrongly scheduled due to human error. They
                      apologised for any embarrassment.

           DECISION   Complaints upheld. As there was no evidence that this was other than an
                      isolated incident no regulatory action was justified.


         HARMFUL      INAPPROPRIATE BREAKS


    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   On Living Channel on 11 May during a young children's programme called
                      Tiny Living a programme trailer for Street Mate "that posed questions about
                      sex", was shown. The complainant felt that it was inappropriate to show this
                      during programmes aimed at young children.

        ASSESSMENT    Flextech, who operate the compliance system for Living, explained that the
                      error had arisen from a change in internal scheduling procedures. Action has
                      been taken to remedy the problem and Flextech apologised for the error.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld. There was no evidence that this was other than an isolated
                      incident so no further regulatory action was indicated.




                                       5
         HARMFUL      RED DEVIL - BIRD SEED
                      Advertising agency: Kunde & Co

   COMPLAINTS FROM    390 viewers

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   The commercial for an energy drink, showed the footballer/actor Vinnie
                      Jones pruning flowers in a garden. He saw a hungry (animated/stuffed) robin
                      looking at an empty bird feeder and crying. He was then seen in a kitchen
                      refilling the feeder. The robin flew towards it, and it became clear that the
                      feeder had in fact been placed just inside the kitchen window. The bird hit
                      the glass and slithered down the pane. Vinnie Jones laughed at the success of
                      his "trick" as the voice-over stated "Red Devil - you can always repent".

                      The complainants found the advertisement to be in bad taste. They objected
                      to what they saw as the flippant depiction of cruelty to birds. Many believed
                      that the advertisement condoned cruelty and might encourage people (and
                      children in particular) either to copy what was shown or to harm animals in
                      some way. A small number mentioned that seeing the commercial had upset
                      their children.

        ASSESSMENT    The BACC stated that it had taken great care to ensure that it would be clear
                      to viewers generally and children in particular that the bird in the commercial
                      was not real. When notified of the level of complaints being received it
                      added a restriction requiring the advertisement to be shown only after 9pm.

                      The ITC noted the strong dislike of the commercial expressed by the
                      complainants. It judged, however, that although some sections of the
                      audience might find the material to be in very poor taste, the advertisement
                      was not unacceptable for broadcast. It consulted the RSPB with regard to
                      possible issues of emulation and concluded that no direct harm was likely to
                      result from the advertising.

           DECISION   Complaints not upheld.




 MISCELLANEOUS        SCHEDULING



                      Staff Intervention

        ASSESSMENT    During the course of routine monitoring Carlton, Westcountry and Central
                      were seen to have exceeded the maximum amount of advertising permitted in
                      any one hour around midnight on Tuesday 8 August.

                      A maximum of 12 minutes of advertising is permitted in any one clock hour
                      and on this occasion 13.30 minutes were transmitted in the midnight hour.
                      Carlton Sales, the company which schedules advertising for the three
                      broadcasters concerned, explained that a break intended for transmission
                      before midnight had been transmitted immediately after midnight. They said
                      that there was no obvious reason for this arising from that evening's
                      transmissions, and they had not been consulted on the change by the
                      presentation department, which had been aware of the requirement to take the
                      break before midnight.


                                       6
                      The ITC were concerned that a compliant advertising minutage schedule
                      could be varied without any apparent cause, in this case creating a breach of
                      scheduling rules, and took the view that the Carlton group should review the
                      communications between scheduling and presentation functions.




 MISCELLANEOUS        SCHEDULING - ACTOR SEPARATION



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   On Anglia Television on the 18 July at 21:22 an advertisement for KP Hula
                      Hoops featuring Julie Smith was transmitted during an episode of The Bill
                      also featuring Ms Smith. The complainant queried whether this was a breach
                      of ITC rules.

        ASSESSMENT    Rule 4.2.7 of the ITC's Rules on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising
                      requires that advertisements featuring persons who also appear within a
                      programme must not be scheduled in breaks during or adjacent to the
                      programmes.

                      TSMS, who schedule the airtime on behalf of Anglia, said that due to human
                      error the restriction was overlooked, for which they apologised.

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




 MISCELLANEOUS        SCHEDULING - ACTOR SEPARATION



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   On GMTV on the 18 May an advertisement for Chessington World of
                      Adventure featuring Keith Chegwin was transmitted adjacent to part of a
                      programme in which he also featured. The viewer believed that this breached
                      the ITC's actor separation rules.

        ASSESSMENT    GMTV explained that they had made every effort to ensure there was no
                      juxtaposition between the programme and the advertisement. However, a
                      technical problem with the live link between studio facilities and the location
                      where Keith Chegwin was presenting delayed the time of his appearance. As
                      a result there was insufficient time available to move the commercial. GMTV
                      apologised for the error.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld. The ITC appreciated that there was an element of force
                      majeur in this incident and concluded that no further regulatory action was
                      necessary on this occasion.




                                       7
 MISCELLANEOUS        SCHEDULING - ACTOR SEPARATION



    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   On UK Gold on the 28 July at 22.56 an advertisement for Abbey National
                      featuring Alan Davis was shown during the programme Jonathan Creek
                      which starred Alan Davis. The complainant thought this was a breach of ITC
                      rules.

        ASSESSMENT    Rule 4.2.7 of the ITC's Rules on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising
                      requires that advertisements featuring persons who also appear in programme
                      must not be scheduled in breaks during or adjacent to the programmes.

                      Flextech, who schedule the commercial airtime on behalf of UK Gold, said
                      that, due to human error, they failed to implement the restriction. They
                      apologised for the error.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld. There was no evidence that this was other than an isolated
                      incident so no further regulatory action was indicated.


 MISCELLANEOUS        SHAREPEOPLE.COM
                      Advertising agency: WCRS

    COMPLAINT FROM    1 viewer

NATURE OF COMPLAINT   Advertising for this on-line share dealing web site stated in voice over "Trade
                      stocks and shares on line, and get all the help you could ask for.
                      Sharepeople.com. Bringing shares and people together". On-screen text
                      contained legally required wording plus "...our services are not for everyone.
                      If in doubt seek expert advice. No personal recommendations provided". A
                      viewer said that he had registered with Sharepeople.com after seeing the
                      advertising, only to find that he was obliged to open an investment account
                      with the Bank of Scotland before he could start to use the service. He
                      believed the advertisement was misleading by not mentioning this condition.

        ASSESSMENT    The advertising agency pointed out that the superimposed text contained clear
                      warnings that the service may not suit everyone, and that viewers were
                      directed to the Sharepeople.com web site, where the "Terms and Conditions
                      of Business" stated:

                      "You must agree to open and maintain a Sterling Investment Account and
                      Reserve Account with the Bank of Scotland ("your Accounts") all the time
                      you are an account holder with us. Our account opening procedure includes
                      the necessary procedure for opening your Bank of Scotland accounts. If, for
                      any reason, the Bank of Scotland refuse to open any account on your behalf,
                      then we will not be able to provide you with any of the services outlined in
                      this Agreement. "

                      The ITC noted these comments but observed that television advertisements
                      must be able to stand alone in complying with ITC rules, and that it was not
                      sufficient to avoid misleadingness by referring viewers to alternative sources
                      of information. The ITC considered that the requirement to open a Bank of
                      Scotland Investment Account was a significant condition, with financial
                      implications for the viewer, and that its omission from the commercial
                      rendered it misleading. It concluded that the advertisement should not be
                      shown again in its current form.

           DECISION   Complaint upheld.

                                       8
                Summary of

                Other Complaints


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

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



             Product or Advertisement                                   Number of
                                                                        Complaints
MISLEADING   AA Membership                                                       1
             ADT Burglar Alarms                                                   1
             Alton Towers                                                         1
             American Express – Travellers Cheques                                1
             Ariel Essential                                                      1
             B&Q                                                                  1
             Baines & Ernst                                                       2
             Barclaycard                                                          1
             Bernard Matthews Turkey Ham                                          1
             Blockbuster Video                                                    1
             British Gas                                                          9
             British Telecom                                                      1
             British Telecom – Internet                                           1
             British Telecom - Second Line                                        1
             British Telecom - Surf Time                                          4
             BT Cellnet - Mobile Internet                                         1
             Cable & Wireless                                                     7
             Charmin Toilet Tissue                                                1
             Claims Direct                                                        1
             COI - RAF Recruitment                                                1
             Comet - Liberty Surf                                                 1
             Cornhill Insurance                                                   2
             Debtbusters                                                          1
             Dettol Liquid Wash                                                   1
             Digital Cellphones                                                   2
                                     9
Direct Car Finance                       1
Direct Line Home Insurance               1
Direct Line Motor Insurance              3
Direct Line Rescue                       1
Fiat Punto                               1
First-e bank                             1
Ford Focus                               2
Gardening Which? Magazine                1
Global Tours - Text                      1
Gregory Pennington Financial Services    1
HEA Immunisation                         1
Head & Shoulders                         1
Holiday Inn Express - Text               1
Homebase                                 1
IC24                                     1
Inland Revenue                           1
Inland Revenue Self Assessment           1
Inspop.com                               6
Inventors Kit                            3
ITV2 Promotions                          5
Kitchens Direct                          1
Kwik-Fit                                 1
Kwik-Fit - Brakes Guarantee              1
Lloyds TSB                               1
Lloyds TSB Insurance - Dog               2
Mattel Barbie Camera                     1
McDonalds - Quarterpounder 99p           3
Mormon Church                            1
New Forest bungalows - Text              1
NTL - Phone & Cable Lines               16
ONdigital                                2
One 2 One - Roaming/Lye In               1
One 2 One - Roaming/Woeing               1
Oreck XL Vacum Cleaners                  1
Panasonic Icon Vacuum Cleaner            1
Peugeot 206 Look - Romeo                 1
Pin 24 product                           1
Planet Talk                              1
Portfield Finance                        1
R&C Markets - Bideford                   1
RAC BSM                                  1
Renault Clio                             1
                       10
            Royal Mail                                 1
            Saga Motor Insurance                       1
            Shoe Tailor                                1
            Sky Digital                                4
            SMA Progress Follow-On Formula             1
            Sunrise Stairlifts                         1
            The Granville Lodge Hotel - Text           1
            The Lamb of God Video                      1
            Thomson Holidays                           2
            Time Computer Systems                      1
            Travel City - Text                         2
            TV Licence Evasion                         1
            TV Licensing                               4
            U Direct Films                             1
            UK Style File                              1




            Product or Advertisement           Number of
                                               Complaints
OFFENSIVE   ADT Burglar Alarms                          1
            Anti Smoking                               1
            Atlantic Telecom                           1
            B&Q Superstore                             1
            Barclaycard                                3
            Barclaycard - Ruins                        2
            Batchelors Super Noodles                   4
            BB Soda                                    4
            Bloo and Bleach                            1
            Cahoot.com                                 1
            Castlemaine XXXX                          10
            Citroen Saxo                               1
            Clearasil                                  1
            COI - RAF Recruitment                      1
            Concern for Comfort Beds                   1
            Dettox                                     1
            Diet Coke                                  1
            Fiat Punto                                 2
            Golden Wonder Crisps                       1
            Heinz Salad Cream                          1
            Heinz Salad Cream - Bin                    2
            Hula Hoops - New Outfit                    3
            Irn Bru                                    1
                                    11
Irn Bru - Hypnotist              2
ITV2 Promotions                  1
Jeyes Bloo & Bleach              1
Kelkoo.com                       2
Kelloggs Cornflakes              2
Kelloggs Fruit & Fibre           1
Lucozade                         1
McDonalds - corporate            1
McDonalds - Quarterpounder 99p   1
Nova Magazine                    1
NSPCC                            2
NTL - Phone & Cable Lines        1
ONdigital                        1
One 2 One - Roaming/Tripping     2
Pampers                          1
PG Tips                          1
Playtex Essensis                 7
Police Recruitment               1
Promise - Red Tape               1
QVC Product                      1
Red Devil - Bird Seed            1
Reed Employment - Pickpocket     2
Renault Clio                     2
Renault Clio 172                 1
Self Trade                       1
Shreddies                        3
Sony DVD                         1
Source Vodka                     7
St. Ivel Gold                    1
Strongbow Cider                  1
Sun Newspaper                    1
Sunday Daily Sport               1
Swiffer                          1
The Dome                         1
Thomson Holidays                 2
Toy Options Tanya                1
Virgin Mobile                    3
Woolworths - Pokeman Trading     3




                         12
                Product or Advertisement       Number of
                                               Complaints
     HARMFUL    Batchelors Super Noodles                1
                Bernard Matthews Turkey Ham            1
                British Telecom – Together             1
                Dettol Liquid Wash                     1
                Fiat Brava                             1
                First Plus Financial Loans             1
                Ford Galaxy                            3
                Guinness Extra Cold - Twins            1
                Heinz Salad Cream - Bin                1
                Listerine                              1
                Lloyd Grossman Sauces                  1
                McDonalds - corporate                  2
                Muller Yogz                            1
                National Lottery Thunderball           1
                NDC - Milk                             2
                NSPCC                                  1
                PG Tips                                1
                RAC/BSM                                2
                Reed Employment - Pickpocket           1
                Renault Clio                           4
                Renault Clio 172                       3
                Rover 25                               1
                Seat Ibiza                             1
                Slendertone Flex                       1
                Source Vodka                           2
                Swiffer                                1
                TV Licensing                           1
                Vision Express                         2
                Walls Cornetto                         1




                Product or Advertisement       Number of
                                               Complaints
MISCELLANEOUS   Castlemaine XXXX                        1
                Elvive Nutrivitamins                   1
                Fairy Liquid                           1
                Holidays 'R' Us - Text                 1
                Jetline - Text                         1
                Med Leisure - Text                     1
                Mormon Church                          3

                                         13
National Westminster Bank   1
Saga Motor Insurance        1
Siemens Mobile Phone        1
Sun Newspaper               1
The Lamb of God Video       1
Woolworths                  1




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


                Product or Advertisement                                         Number of
                                                                                 Complaints
   MISLEADING   Programme promotions/trailers                                             1




                Product or Advertisement                                         Number of
                                                                                 Complaints
    OFFENSIVE   General                                                                   1
                Miscellaneous comments                                                      1
                Sanitary Protection Products                                                3
                Sex in advertising                                                          1
                Sexism - Men                                                                1




                Product or Advertisement                                         Number of
                                                                                 Complaints
     HARMFUL    General                                                                   1




                Product or Advertisement                                         Number of
                                                                                 Complaints
MISCELLANEOUS   Amount of Advertising                                                     2
                Formula One                                                                 6
                Inappropriate Breaks                                                        1
                Miscellaneous comments                                                      2
                Noise                                                                      11
                Separation of Advertisements                                                1
                Toy Advertising                                                             1




                                        15
                   Analysis

                                              COMPLAINTS DETERMINED IN AUGUST 2000

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

   MISLEADING                  152     (7)                  59     (6)                   6      (0)

    OFFENSIVE                  119     (0)                  38     (0)                   2      (0)

     HARMFUL                   433     (0)                  18     (0)                   1      (0)

MISCELLANEOUS                   44     (3)                  11     (3)                   5      (0)

                               748    (10)                 126     (9)                  14      (0)




                                                                          YEAR TO DATE 2000

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

   MISLEADING                 1528    (79)                 494    (78)                  62    (15)

    OFFENSIVE                 1483     (0)                 298     (0)                   8      (0)

     HARMFUL                  1488     (0)                 209     (0)                   7      (0)

MISCELLANEOUS                  311    (16)                  87    (16)                  27      (2)

                              4810    (95)                1088    (94)                 104    (17)




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




                                         16