Misleading Advertising/Claims

MadsL

Err..can Esat really claim this??



What if I want to surf more than 180 hours a month?

Páid

What if I want to surf more than 180 hours a month?

Then ESAT's "Spirit of Service" clause bites you in the ass.

ednwireland

also it doesn't mention that this is a limited offer for three months (price thereafter €30 a month) also it is only that if you sign up in july i where did you see this ad i would definitely report it to the asai

raeGten

I really don't think they should be allowed to get away with that. I don't think 'Spirit of Service' allows them to get away with blatant lies!

MadsL

Thank You

Your complaint has been forwarded to the relevant member of the ASAI staff. You will receive a response in the next few days.

The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland

anyone else care to complain; takes about 5min in an online formhere

Páid

Where did you see the ad?

MadsL

http://www.oceanfree.net/index.htm

http://www.oceanfree.net/index.htm

ednwireland

god they are going to be sick of this board - complaint sent

pete

Unless the ad in question is displayed on a non-ESAT owned website then it ain't advertising, kids.

acous

Unless the ad in question is displayed on a non-ESAT owned website then it ain't advertising, kids.

why do you think that? of course it's advertising. what if it was a popup ad that was located on their servers? does the same hold true in real life if they displayed a (licenced) banner on a building they owned? can i put a blatantly false ad in a newspaper i own?

tuxy

did you also complain that its 25 euro a month and not 20 euro
but as oceanfree is an esat site i guess they are allowed lie :mad:

MadsL

Unless the ad in question is displayed on a non-ESAT owned website then it ain't advertising, kids.

How so? As far as I read the code of conduct....

Advertisement Promotions
12.56 Advertisement promotions should be designed and presented in such a way that they can easily be distinguished from editorial material

This is clearly an advertising promotion. And as such would fall under the ASAI codes.


The Codes cover paid-for advertising and sales promotions in Irish-based media e.g. newspapers, magazines, direct mailings, radio, television, cinema, the Internet, posters and outdoor advertising.

It is characteristic of a commercial advertisement subject to the Codes that the advertiser pays or compensates a third party to communicate the commercial message. Advertising that has 'paid- for' space in the media, including the Internet, is covered. It should be noted that, as with traditional media, the editorial or self-advertising content of websites is not covered. Thus the Codes do not generally cover the content of websites other than advertisements in 'paid-for' space within the website.

The ad is clearly in the 'paid-for' section of the website. Given that Esat have about a million different companies - it comes as no suprise that the oceanfree.net domain is registered to:

Registrant:
Esat BT (OCEANFREE2-DOM)
Grand Canal Plaza
Dublin 4
Dublin, Dublin dublin 4
IE

And the IOL.ie domain to;

domain: iol.ie
descr: Ireland On-Line Ltd
descr: Body Corporate (Ltd,PLC,Company)
descr: Corporate Name
admin-c: SC92-IEDR
tech-c: IOH3-IEDR
nserver: ns.iol.ie 194.125.2.240
nserver: ns.pipex.net
source: IEDR


Therefore two separate companies, clearly a 'paid-for' ad (even if no money changes hands, and subject to the full force of the ASAI - as 'unscary' as they are...:rolleyes:

MadsL

/me thinks for a bit

Quick, Devore - offer 'em a great rate on advertising...10c a week'll do it.

acous

The ASAI have the power to fine esat and disallow any newspaper/tv/radio ads by them. I'm sure if it was requested that the internet ad be removed, it would be in esat's best interest to comply.

sceptre

Anyone hear the Esat radio advert for IOL Anytime yet?

Funny stuff, makes the same "surf as often as you want for a flat monthly fee" statement

No mention of 180 hours, any other references to "limits" or any possible additional cost.

As people may remember from this recent thread, the lack of reference to any possible additional cost was one of the things the ASAI didn't like about the Eircom advert. They were also not amused that Eircom were relying on a quick "Terms and conditions apply" statement at the end of the advert. Guess what the Esat advert closes with? Yup, you've guessed it: "Terms and conditions apply". CLearly breaks the ASAI's advertising standards - it omits crucial details, relies on "terms and conditions apply" as a catchall, and seeks to mislead by not mentioning any limit at all. This one's indefensible.

The ASAI won't like this if anyone (or a few people) tell them through their quick and easy online complaints service available at their website.

Advert was played on Today FM at both 11:42 and 14:08 today by the way (I was in the car spending 3/4 of an hour trying to drive through Kildare at 3 mph)

(times may be handy should you choose to make an online report - you can rely on my good reputation to believe I'm telling the truth about the advert. I'm not telling anyone to make a complaint. Normally I'd advise anyone to make damn sure that it is as the poster thinks it is (no-one wants a repeat of the TV3 thing due to a mishearing of the report). Listen carefully to the advert when it comes on - unless they change it after reading this the necessary legal ingredients will not be present)

edit to account for the "paid for" discussion: obviously this raadio advert is paid for and is in the ASAI's domain.

Now I wouldn't normally do this but hello Eircom execs! You can complain about this too as long as you declare your commercial interest in the matter.

sceptre is very protective about the term "flat"-anything.

spongebob

Originally posted by pete
Unless the ad in question is displayed on a non-ESAT owned website then it ain't advertising, kids.

It is on my.yahoo.com as well

Game on

pete

Originally posted by Muck
It is on my.yahoo.com as well

Game on

Bingo.

And they're off.

pete

Acous; MaDSL - I "know this" because i'm one of those strange weirdos who checks their ****ing facts before they go shouting the odds on internet message boards.

http://www.mccann-fitzgerald.ie/legal_briefing/corporate_commercial/advertising_standards.html

New technologies, new realities

Since 1 April 2002 the Codes relating to advertising standards and sales promotion have been applied to advertising and promotions on the internet, viewdata services and on any other electronic or computer system, recognising expressly what has been the practice of ASAI up to the introduction of the new Codes.

This extension of the Codes to internet advertising and promotions applies only where the relevant website space is paid for. It does not, for example, extend to advertising or promotions on the advertiser’s or promoter’s own website. This limitation reflects the fact that ASAI is concerned only with the actions of members, ie. the advertising industry. Advertising by a member on other websites (perhaps in the form of banner advertisements or through a hyperlink) or payment for a promotion to appear on a third party website, would come within the Codes.

spongebob

Pete is absolutely correct. ESAT may mislead away on their own website and the ASAI will do nothing about it, putting the same lie in a PAID Banner Ad on Yahoo is misleading under the ASAI regulations.

M

Dawg

They've changed the one on oceanfree.net to "surf day or night" instead of "surf all you want", didn't check the yahoo one.

Guess they be keepin a close eye on boards...

[edit]
Didn't see any mention of 'em on my.yahoo
[/edit]

MadsL

And I did check my facts before 'shouting the odds'

The ad is clearly in the 'paid-for' section of the website. Given that Esat have about a million different companies - it comes as no suprise that the oceanfree.net domain is registered to:

Registrant:
Esat BT (OCEANFREE2-DOM)
Grand Canal Plaza
Dublin 4
Dublin, Dublin dublin 4
IE

And the IOL.ie domain to;

domain: iol.ie
descr: Ireland On-Line Ltd
descr: Body Corporate (Ltd,PLC,Company)
descr: Corporate Name
admin-c: SC92-IEDR
tech-c: IOH3-IEDR
nserver: ns.iol.ie 194.125.2.240
nserver: ns.pipex.net
source: IEDR


TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES...


That makes it an 'Advertisment' and as such it falls under the code you just quoted.

Anyway, just saw Muck's reply...

MadsL

Bloody Hell, that was quick...Fear the power of the boards.

Now I wonder if I can get Tesco to behave...

pete

Originally posted by MadsL
Given that Esat have about a million different companies

ESAT own both oceanfree and IOL.

You cannot advertise on your own website. Promote, certainly - but not advertise.

edit: Just to clarify: I happen to agree with you - they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. But the ASAI invariably stick to the letter of the code.

MadsL

Give it up Pete, or I'll ask Muck to explain Esat's corporate ownership structure...:D

pete

Originally posted by MadsL
Give it up Pete, or I'll ask Muck to explain Esat's corporate ownership structure...:D

Ah I see you subscribe to the fingers in the ears, "na-na-na-na i can't hear you" school of debate.

Smart.

spongebob

HERE WE GO

This animated Gif , found on the notorious Doubleclick paid banner site is the one yáll should specifically complain about once you download it of course

http://ad.ie.doubleclick.net/viewad/596867/anytime_468_bu.gif

It is on heavy rotation thru yahoo.ie

http://www.asai.ie/

bang it into the online form there.

M

sceptre

Now now kids, play nice or I'll have to smite someone around the head with a wet lettuce. Misleading advertising is something of a personal crusade with me so I'll be keeping an extra eye on this thread.

(thanks for the location Muck. All doubleclick traffic is blocked for me by Norton so I couldn't even see the link without turning it off)

spongebob

Pete is correct and you are wrong Madsl

Look at the Bold bits in his post on the regulations.

Dont't tell us , tell the ASAI......FFS

pete

ah buh we're all just big kids here on the interweb really, aren't we

anyways here's the complaint i submitted - did i miss anything?

The advertisement clearly states that "for a flat monthly charge" of €20 a user may "surf anytime of the day".

Grounds for complaint:

1. This advertisement is misleading as it fails to mention that there is a monthly limit of 180 hours imposed - equivalent to approximately 6 hours per day. A user choosing to "surf anytime" for more than these 6 hours per day / 180 hours per month is subject to extra charges over and above the claimed "€20 flat monthly fee".

2. The advertisement is misleading as it fails to mention that the €20 quoted is a time-limited offer, applicable only for the first 3 months of service.


I trust you will give this matter your immediate attention.

edit: ehhh deliberate mistake edited there. oops.

MadsL

/me slaps head

MadsL

All this arguing finally sent me Insane..

250!!

spongebob

Originally posted by pete

anyways here's the complaint i submitted - did i miss anything?

No ...I think, is there a setup charge of any sort, that is not mentioned in the ad.

The €20 is a time limited promotion for the first 2 or 3 months and will then go up to €25 or €30 or is that from the first of september 2003 , not sure.

The AD is in breach of the following sections of the ASAI code (and probably some more)

2.20 Advertisers should not exploit the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of consumers.

2.22 An advertisement should not mislead by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.

Once you have stated how the ad in non compliant with all the above, you could delve into 2 or the more esoteric faults in the ad.....following.

(If there is a setup charge, the end of the following applies)

2.39 Except in advertisements addressed exclusively to the trade, prices quoted should normally include VAT and other taxes, duties or inescapable costs to the consumer. Where applicable, the amounts of any other charges such as those arising from the method of purchase or payment should be stated.

(On the notorious ineptitude of IOL customer care, should one wish to raise the subject)

2.43 Advertisers should be in a position to meet any reasonable demand created by their advertising. If a product proves to be available in insufficient quantity, advertisers should take immediate action to ensure that any further advertisements are amended or withdrawn.


Anyway thats only a bit of padding for points one and two in Petes complaint.

Impeccably put Pete ply3D

pete

why thank you, sir

during my normal browsing and F5'ing of every Irish site I know that carries advertising this evening, i happened across a flash banner & also a popup verision of the offending ad on www.examiner.ie

MadsL

So basically, bang to rights - left right and centre.

I trust everyone is attaching a downloaded copy of the ad to their complaints...or would that just be pointing out the bleeding obvious. :rolleyes:

By the way did anyone hear the eircom radio ad that claimed to have the 'best content'??

acous

pete: you said "Unless the ad in question is displayed on a non-ESAT owned website then it ain't advertising, kids.".

this statement is untrue. it is advertising, wheither or not it is payed for.

anyway... theres no need to get abusive (you fílthy fúcker).

do i get the tireless rebutter card now? .

spongebob

Once again

If it not paid for and to be found on another parties website it is not ADVERTISING as the ASAI understands it. You may think Pete is pedantic but just wait till you deal with the ASAI themselves.

It is a PROMOTION instead of ADVERTISING. There are plenty of grounds for complaining about a PROMOTION per se as you will see if you click HERE

M

MadsL

I don't want to start this up again but is it not the case that Oceanfree (Esat BT ) and IOL (Ireland On-Line Ltd)
are two separate companies. As such (even if no money changes hands) these banner ads come under the category of advertising?


Esat is highly fragmented...
The challenge for Esat, according to Parkinson, would be to continue company growth while ensuring the company didn't lose its innovative character.

"That was part of the reasoning behind splitting the group into three autonomous groups -- Esat Business, Digifone and Fusion -- with three separate management teams."




Or should I go stick my head in a bucket??

spongebob

From the ASAI website

Chapter Three: Scope and Coverage
The two Codes administered by ASAI - the Code of Advertising Standards and the Code of Sales Promotion Practice - are based on the principles established by the International Chamber of Commerce.

<snip>

It is characteristic of a commercial advertisement subject to the Codes that the advertiser pays or compensates a third party to communicate the commercial message . Advertising that has 'paid- for' space in the media, including the Internet, is covered. It should be noted that, as with traditional media, the editorial or self-advertising content of websites is not covered. Thus the Codes do not generally cover the content of websites other than advertisements in 'paid-for' space within the website.

Esat group companies carry each others ads for FREE Madsl! Nor are they a Third Party

M

pete

I have just had an idea:

People who want to complain about ESAT advertising on oceanfree & IOL should stop talking about it and just go ahead and lodge complaints.

Dustaz

Im sick of this. Sceptre has made clear what the situation is. He has cleaned up a load of ****e from this thread and i am sure has no inclination to do it again.

So im going to pull a devore and make this very clear.


The next person who continues to argue about this will be banned from this forum.


Pete and Mucks position is the correct and factual one. For the purposes of this thread that is what we will go on.

dahamsta

Sorry Dusty, but there is one other aspect of this: Oceanfree and IOL being owned by the same company does not necessarily mean that the ads are "free". For accounting purposes, it's possible - if not likely - that payment has been made for the placements.

adam

pete

Originally posted by dahamsta
Sorry Dusty, but there is one other aspect of this: Oceanfree and IOL being owned by the same company does not necessarily mean that the ads are "free". For accounting purposes, it's possible - if not likely - that payment has been made for the placements.

adam

I have been thinking about this too, but i'm inclined to think that as ESAT BT (the telco selling DSL to the consumer) actually 100% owns both IOL and Oceanfree (the ISP's carrying the "advertisements") then - creative accounting aside - they are one and the same organisation as far as "The Code" goes.

tbh i'm sorry i said anything at this stage....

MadsL

Ok, let's drop it. I'm wrong. I usually am.

I started this thread to have people complain about a misleading ad - not to argue about Esat's accounting policy - if you have lodged a complaint then great. If you have done so quoting the Oceanfree site then perhaps you should also quote the ad on doubleclick as Muck suggests.


Thanks to everyone who lodged a complaint, at least we got the oceanfree one changed PDQ.

p.pete

Originally posted by MadsL
I started this thread to have people complain about a misleading

"Stoners Pot Palace", flagrant false advertising (I don't think I belong here?)

MadsL

Fer god's sake take more tobacco with it.

pete

Much as I hate to drag this back on topic, I got a postcard yesterday, confirming receipt of my complaint.

MadsL

I got mine yesterday. Waste of money don't we think. You complete an online form and we'll send you a postcard. Tsskk!~ E-tub of europe alright. Perhaps we should 'ask Mare', she might open a website or something.

Seriously - is this e-government or the muppet show?

sceptre

Muppet show (though I've quite some respect for the ASAI. An email acknowledgement where possible would make sense though).

Incidentally I got my postcard on Monday.

pete

Ah yes.

Remember this?

Shouldn't be long now.

gonker

got my reply today. "They are sorry" "they wont do it again" "they removed it when they realized how bold they were"
Typical but then what did we expect
gonk

spongebob

The offending ad is still on Doubleclick. Odd!

http://ad.ie.doubleclick.net/viewad/596867/anytime_468_bu.gif

M