From: Chris
To: dairam@ASA.Org.UK
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:51:06 +0000
OK I've exercised your system to it's conclusion. And it
clearly, and mightily, stinks.
I've written to my MP and will shortly publish an article
all about your high standards, Mr. Moynihan.
Doubtless he'll ignore it totally - so it goes with our
Great British institutions.
So we'll see what the great unwashed feels about your approach
to protecting public standards.
And I'll try to energise some publicity via Watchdog and
so on. I hope your rise to fame is meteoric.
You're a smart man. With no doubt whatsoever, you will completely
understand that the moral high ground is not yours, and
it's not the ASA's.
I guess you'd prefer to just keep taking the money.
It is my hope that, sooner or later, you will not be taking
a salary doing what you do to "Uphold the standards
of public advertising in the UK"
- because what you're patently doing is upholding the interests
of those you work for - the ASA and the advertisers.
Have a great week.
Chris Wesley - not earning a penny for wasting my time trying
to wipe out stinking lies from the telly
-----Original Message-----
From: Daira Moynihan [mailto:dairam@ASA.Org.UK]
Sent: 30 October 2009 17:08
To: 'Chris Wesley'
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Dear Mr Wesley
I won’t address each of your questions because all
of them from number 2 onwards seem to either be predicated
on your own response of “No” to question 1 or
your interpretation of various Code rules. The ASA Council,
which is the final arbiter of the Code and whether or not
an ad is in breach of any Code rule, decided that the answer
to that question was “Yes” (on the basis that
all broadband providers charge line rental of some kind
and communicate it separately to their monthly subscription
charges and that the cost of line rental was made sufficiently
clear in this ad). Therefore there is nothing more that
I can say.
Regards
Daira Moynihan
From: Chris Wesley [mailto:Chris]
Sent: 22 October 2009 12:45
To: Daira Moynihan
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Hello Daira,
Of course, this is disappointing for me, but more generally,
because I must be missing something really important.
If you could enlighten me as to my reasoning error, I will
probably go away forever, whereas if you cannot, I'm going
to make this a crusade.
So therefore, please give me 10 more minutes of your time
to explain where I am going wrong, and the best way, it
seems to me, is to answer the questions I sent you in an
earlier email, which I've copied again below.
====================
1. Is there ANY SENSE in which TalkTalk's plan costs £6.49
per month?
My answer is NO, so then:
2. Doesn't that mean that they're LYING then?
My answer is YES, so then:
3. Do you agree that the power of the lie - in moving colour
images, sound, music and so on - is far more powerful than
the truth - in tiny fleeting test?
My answer is YES, so then:
4. Isn't it obvious that most people will not register
the tiny truth, but will register the HUGE LIE?
My answer is YES, so then:
5. How can you justify the code which permits it?
Please be sure to answer each of those specifically, and
know that I'll publish your responses on the web.
==================
I have now read the code in some detail, and - as I alluded
to earlier,it seems to be quite well-written and based in
common sense.
That's good news, but it makes your decision and that of
your appeals process even more perplexing.
So, as well as answering the above questions, please also
answer these:
6. Guide section 5.1.2 note 2 says:
Advertising is likely to be considered misleading if,
for example, it contains a false statement... about a material
fact...
a. Your answer to my questions 1 above may address this
for us.
Isn't it clearly true that the statement "This package
costs just £6.49 a month" is literally totally
untrue. It WON'T EVER COST YOU THAT MUCH.
b. This note goes on to say:
Any ambiguity which might give a misleading impression
must be avoided.
By stating that the package is £6.49 but adding
a small text qualifier saying it isn't - this is ambiguous.
Isn't it?
c. 5.1.2 note 3 says:
Even if everything stated is literally true, an advertisement
may still mislead if it ... creates a false impression.
When you headline a great price in moving images and sound,
but you un-say those claims in tiny fleeting text, YOU ARE
LIKELY TO CREATE A FALSE IMPRESSION - aren't you?
d. 5.1.2 note 6 goes on:
[ASA and BCAP] must consider the overall impression likely
to be conveyed to the average consumer.
This ad, and many others, seems DESIGNED to give entirely
the wrong impression and hope that the consumers don't notice
the small print.
e. The entirety of 5.1.3 clearly supports my viewpoint
and not yours. Doesn't it?
f. 5.4.1 says:
Advertisers must not use any technique that is likely
to give a misleading ... impression.
Is seems clear to me, again, that using small print to
undo the lies which the far larger more impactful ad has,
is exactly such a misleading technique.
Isn't it?
g. 5.4.2(a) says:
Text in advertisements must be legible ....
I do not wear glasses, but I can barely read much of it.
h. 5.4.2(b) says:
Whilst test may expand or clarify a claim ... it must
not contradict the claim.
TalkTalk CLAIM the package is £6.49 a month. The
text contradicts that claim, but adding a further line rental
charge.
If you don't agree this is a clear breech, then one of
us is either mad or a bare-faced liar, and I WILL find out
which it is.
I'm going to stop here for now.
I hope that you can respond in some other way than simply
claiming that black is white and that these cases are not
what they seem to me to clearly be.
But if you do do that, or if you decide not to respond,
then I'll conduct an online survey of many members of the
public and see who they agree with,
and I'll involve my MP and others.
Please don't give up on me, Daira. I really want to let
this go. If you can explain why my conclusions are simply
wrong, I'll drop it and be glad to.
But right now, I just can't see it.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Daira Moynihan [mailto:dairam@ASA.Org.UK]
Sent: 22 October 2009 12:16
To: 'Chris Wesley'
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Dear Mr Wesley
The ASA Council has now considered your complaint under
the TV Advertising Standards Code. It considered that the
ad made clear in the onscreen text, which it felt was of
adequate size and held for a reasonable length of time,
that line rental was payable and how much it cost. It concluded
that the ad was unlikely to mislead viewers about the monthly
cost of the services offered. We have informed the advertiser
that their ad provoked a complaint that was considered by
Council, without revealing any details of the complainant.
We have now closed our file on the matter.
Yours sincerely
Daira Moynihan
From: Chris Wesley [mailto:Chris]
Sent: 14 October 2009 13:59
To: Daira Moynihan
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043 =>LFB.BB.ASA
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daira Moynihan [mailto:dairam@ASA.Org.UK]
Sent: 14 October 2009 12:22
To: 'Chris Wesley'
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043 =>LFB.BB.ASA
Dear Mr Wesley
The ASA Council will be asked to consider your complaint
and our assessment of it this week. We should be able to
get back to you by the end of next week.
Daira
From: Chris Wesley [mailto:Chris]
Sent: 14 October 2009 12:20
To: Daira Moynihan
Subject: FW: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043 =>LFB.BB.ASA
Daira,
On October 1st, you asked me to wait for you to get back
tome with further information.
I'm sure you are busy and many of the issues you deal with
are complex and require the cooperation of others, so two
weeks is not an inordinate amount of time to wait.
But please give me some indication of what it is I'm waiting
for, and how much longer you estimate will be required.
Thanks,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Wesley [mailto:Chris]
Sent: 06 October 2009 10:30
To: 'Daira Moynihan'
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Thanks Daira,
What strikes me when reading them is that they are actually
reasonably sensible, and that they support my views and
not yours!
I won't get into that here, instead I'll wait for your
response. Please give me an ETA.
Thanks.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Daira Moynihan [mailto:dairam@ASA.Org.UK]
Sent: 06 October 2009 10:21
To: 'Chris Wesley'
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Mr Wesley
Yes, those are the rules that we judge most complaint about
TV ads against (there are also a separate set of rules that
deal specifically with the scheduling of some kinds of TV
ads).
Regards
Daira
From: Chris Wesley [mailto:Chris]
Sent: 02 October 2009 16:36
To: Daira Moynihan
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Daira,
Thank you for the holding response. I will wait a while
longer.
In the meantime, please confirm that the standards you
measure compliance to are those embodied in the code here:
http://www.cap.org.uk/The-Codes/~/media/Files/CAP/Codes/BCAPTVAdCode.ashx
which is linked to on the page here: http://www.cap.org.uk/The-Codes/BCAP-Code.aspx.
If not, please point me directly at the standard you do
use.
Thanks & Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Daira Moynihan [mailto:dairam@ASA.Org.UK]
Sent: 01 October 2009 17:16
To: 'Chris Wesley'
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Dear Mr Wesley
We will get back to you shortly with further information.
Regards
Daira Moynihan
From: Chris Wesley [mailto:Chris]
Sent: 22 September 2009 10:42
To: Daira Moynihan
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Dear Mr. Moynihan
Thank you for your recent email. I now understand the following:
1. You confirm that the ASA regulates TV advertising, so
my complaint regarding the TalkTalk ad was addressed to
the correct body.
2. You have rejected my complaint because it meets the
guidelines, in that it undoes the lies it tells in large
moving narrated video - with small, fleeting, low-contrast,
silent, static text.
3. You say that, if I wish to take issue with the standard
which permits this kind of dishonesty, ("The Code")
then I have my MP or OfCom to turn to.
4. You also note that I may also give general feedback
to the ASA.
5. I may also request an independent review of your adjudication
in favour or TalkTalk.
6. You note that recent consultation on a new code is now
closed.
Your explanation of why this code is sensible points to
a status quo spanning decades, and involving the establishment's
tacit approval.
By that measure, slavery was an exceptionally wonderful
idea.
Well, where now? Am I being argumentative? I don't think
so, but perhaps I am wrong, and so - before I take this
further, I would appreciate your expert insights.
Fundamentally, it seems to me, to be genuinely and obviously
WRONG that the big, moving images, sound and music - orchestrated
by psychologists and world-class film directors, designed
to manipulate our buying decisions, can be sprayed into
our homes - and it's OK for them to LIE TO US, as long as
tiny, fleeting disclaimers are also included.
Please show me the error in my thinking. Why is that OK?
Why isn't that fundamentally dishonest? Why is the code
which permits it just hunky dory?
Specifically, for you, please:
1. Is there ANY SENSE in which TalkTalk's plan costs £6.49
per month?
My answer is NO, so then:
2. Doesn't that mean that they're LYING then?
My answer is YES, so then:
3. Do you agree that the power of the lie - in moving colour
images, sound, music and so on - is far more powerful than
the truth - in tiny fleeting test?
My answer is YES, so then:
4. Isn't it obvious that most people will not register
the tiny truth, but will register the HUGE LIE?
My answer is YES, so then:
5. How can you justify the code which permits it?
Please be sure to answer each of those specifically, and
know that I'll publish your responses on the web.
Assuming you don't manage to straighten out my thinking,
or you decide not to bother trying, then:
1. please consider this an appeal against your decision
on the TalkTalk ad, because this situation stinks so horribly
that I'm not going to give up on it until it is fixed.
2. I will tackle this with my MP and with OfCom.
Thanks,
Chris Wesley
-----Original Message-----
From: Daira Moynihan [mailto:dairam@ASA.Org.UK]
Sent: 11 September 2009 17:07
To: 'Chris'
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Dear Mr Wesley
Neil has passed your email to me as you seem dissatisfied
with the answers he has provided to the queries you made
with your complaint. I should say straight away that, judging
from the correspondence up to this point, there appears
to be no evidence of intransigence on his part or the “complacent
incompetence” that you refer to. While he didn’t
explicitly address your queries in his initial response,
they were put in such a way that one might reasonably have
regarded them as either rhetorical questions or comments
to be noted on how the ASA makes itself accessible to the
public and communicates with them. You subsequently made
clear that you required answers to them, which he provided.
When you demanded further clarification, he gave it but,
from your comments in yesterday’s email, it is clear
that you are still not satisfied. I feel that these comments
should be addressed directly.
Your first three comments yesterday expressed confusion
at why Neil had provided more details about how advertising
is regulated in this country. This information was provided
in response to your questions “who thinks that serves
our society well? And why?” and your statement (in
your email of 9 September) that “the guidelines are…biased
in favour of the advertiser”. These were predicated
on a mistaken impression of how advertising standards are
maintained, making a direct response to your questions difficult.
As he had already explained, we assess complaints on a case
by case rather than applying the crude rationale that you
had suggested but nevertheless he went on to outline the
respective backgrounds to the regulation of non-broadcast
and broadcast advertising, both of which are the day-to-day
responsibility of the ASA and CAP/BCAP. He also explained
that the ASA regulates TV and Radio advertising on behalf
of Ofcom, the statutory communication regulator, and that
it has successfully regulated non-broadcast advertising
for over four decades with the approval of the relevant
government departments, statutory regulators and the Courts.
This showed “who” thinks it’s a good idea
for the ASA to administer the Advertising Standards Codes,
which lay down what is and is not acceptable in ads to both
protect consumers and maintain a level playing field for
marketers and, in terms of its long standing effectiveness
in maintaining standards , “why”.
I note your final question, which you had not asked directly
in your previous correspondence, “to whom may I address
my concerns about he advertising standard?(sic)” If
you are fundamentally dissatisfied with how non-broadcast
advertising is self-regulated and/or how broadcast advertising
is co-regulated and the role the ASA plays then I can only
suggest that you raise your concerns with your MP, who may
feel that the matter is one that demands to be acted on
as a public policy priority, or with Ofcom directly. Alternatively,
we are always happy to receive general feedback from members
of the public. This should be sent to the most appropriate
email address on the ‘Contact Us’ page of our
website rather than through the complaints form, which is
for complaints about specific ads.
If your concerns are about the wording of the Codes then
you should know that CAP and BCAP have recently closed public
consultations on new Codes, which were written in light
of contributions from industry bodies, statutory regulators,
consumer groups and other bodies concerned with consumer
protection. While it is too late to respond to these consultations,
many thousands of responses were received and are being
thoroughly considered. You have already stated that you
don’t wish to challenge the assessment of your complaint
but you should know that, if complainants are dissatisfied
with a decision made on their complaint by the ASA Council
they can request an independent review. If they are dissatisfied
with a decision made under delegated authority by the ASA
Executive then we are always willing to refer the matter
to Council for its view.
I hope that this fully addresses the your comments.
Yours sincerely
Daira Moynihan
Daira Moynihan (Mr) | Complaints Manager
Direct line 020 7492 2152 | E-mail dairam@asa.org.uk
Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place 71 High Holborn London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222 www.asa.org.uk
Keeping advertising standards high
From: Chris Wesley [mailto:Chris]
Sent: 10 September 2009 13:13
To: Neil Burrows
Subject: RE: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV
ad A09-103043
Neil,
my comments are inline with yours. below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Burrows [mailto:neilb@ASA.Org.UK]
Sent: 10 September 2009 11:30
To: 'Chris Wesley'
Subject: Complaint to ASA about TalkTalk Telecom TV ad A09-103043
Dear Mr Wesley
Thank you for your email.
Non-broadcast advertising in the UK is subject to the rules
contained in the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion
and Direct Marketing (you can read the advertising Codes
on our website, www.asa.org.uk).
You seem to be saying that basically I'm writing to the
wrong people, as the ASA is responsible for non-broadcast
ads, and my complaint concerns a broadcast (TV) ad. Yet,
the ASA website includes adjudications concerning TV ads,
so I don't understand why this paragraph is present.
The ASA began to administer the system of self-regulation
in 1962 and is accepted as the established means of regulating
non-broadcast advertising by the Courts and Government.
Why did you say any of that? I haven't asked for a history
lesson. How does that take my enquiry forward? Is it there
to pad out the response - or to hide the fact that - yet
again - you have failed to address my concern? If not, then
what?
Your complaint concerned a TV ad. TV ads must comply with
the TV Advertising Standards Code. The TV Code is the responsibility
of the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP)
under contract from the broadcast and telecommunications
statutory regulator, Ofcom. You can find more information
about the breakdown of responsibility between Ofcom and
the ASA at www.ofcom.org.uk.
Are you saying that queries concerning the standard should
be directed to Ofcom? If so, then I feel you could have
said it far more clearly and succinctly. Are you saying
that? If not, then what are you saying?
As I advised in my previous email, our website contains
more information about the way the self-regulatory system
works. We consider complaints on their own merits and on
a case by case basis; in this case we considered that we
did not have grounds for intervention for the reasons explained
in my letter of yesterday’s date (sent by email only).
Yes, I got the letter and read it. I understand that you
adjudicated against my complaint. That conversation is over,
and I don't know why you have raised it again. I want to
speak to someone about the standard - not about your adjudications
against it. If the standard stinks, then the adjudications
will stink. They both stink. I want to get that fixed. How
do I go about that?
When you originally completed our online complaint form,
you did not enter an email address for correspondence. As
you will see from the form and our subsequent correspondence,
we are happy to reply by email where appropriate and certainly
if the complainant prefers. I am sorry that you were not
satisfied with the design and performance of our online
form. I will pass your comments on to our Complaints Reception
team so they are aware of your concern.
Thank you.
Oh, and I don't accept your disclaimer. I reserve the right
to publish everything said here, and in fact, fully intend
to do so.
Your intransigence thus far is very disappointing, but
not at all surprising. It's what I have come to expect of
people working in organisations like yours which - though
set up and funded to protect our society - actually slide
into an entitlement mentality of protecting jobs and hiding
complacent incompetence.
Now, please answer this questions clearly: to whom may
I address my concerns about he advertising standard?
Thanks,
Chris Wesley
Yours sincerely
Neil Burrows | Complaints Executive | ASA
Tel: 020 7492 2102 | Email: neilb@asa.org.uk
Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place 71 High Holborn London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222 www.asa.org.uk
Keeping advertising standards high
________________________________________________________________________
The Advertising Standards Authority Ltd, Registered Number
0733214
The Advertising Standards Authority (Broadcast) Ltd, Registered
Number 5130991
The Committee of Advertising Practice, an unincorporated
association
The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice Ltd, Registered
Number 5126412
Registered Office: Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London,
WC1V 6QT
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this electronic correspondence
and any files transmitted with it is intended for the addressee
only and may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the addressee please delete this message
and notify the sender; you should not copy or distribute
this message or disclose its contents to anyone.
________________________________________________________________________
