Complaint against IPL Upheld.

tbh

Story at: http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/07/13/story267647.html


http://www.bcc.ie/decisions_details/May2006/70 06 decision R Di Mascio May06.doc

Complaint Summary:
Mr. Di Mascio’s complaint, under Appendix 2 (prohibited advertisements) of the 1995 Ministerial Advertising Codes, refers to an advertisement for Irish Psychics Live. It is his belief that advertisements for such services are currently banned under appendix 2 under the description of 'fortune tellers and the like'.

Station’s Response:
TV3 submits that it endorses the response of the advertiser.

Advertiser’s Response:
The advertiser, Realm Communications, states that it is their view that the prohibition on the type of advertisement referred to in Appendix 2 of the Ministerial Codes, 'fortune tellers and the like', does not apply to their industry. The definition of fortune-teller in the Oxford English dictionary is as follows: -fortune-teller, noun – a person who claims to have magic powers and who tells people what will happen in the future.'

Their company does not advertise that its employees have magic powers. The prohibition is in their view intended to prohibit individuals holding themselves out as having special powers, thus misleading the public. The reality of the advertisements placed by Realm Communications is that they advertise general entertainment services. They understand that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is reviewing the general advertising code at present with a view to considering whether prohibitions presently contained in the Ministerial Codes should be removed and/or altered. It is Realm Communications view that the present prohibitions should be removed, and normal advertising standards applied.

The advertiser further states that not only are these advertisements in compliance with the general standards applicable to advertising but also the standards and practice of the Code of Practice introduced by Regtel.

Decision of the Commission:
The Commission considered the broadcast, the submissions made by the complainant, the broadcaster and the advertiser. The Commission noted the references in the advertiser's response to Regtel and to a review process of the broadcasting advertising codes. The BCC can only assess a complaint concerning an advertisement based on the 'Codes of standards, practice and prohibitions in advertising, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion in broadcasting services'. Therefore, the claim that the advertisement is in line with Regtel Code is not relevant to the Commission's assessment of this complaint. Also, the fact that the broadcasting advertising code is currently being reviewed cannot influence the complaint process. A listener or viewer is entitled to make a complaint based on the code and regulations currently in place, and the Commission is obliged to process it. Therefore, the Commission must accept and process complaints under Appendix 2 of the 'Codes of standards, practice and prohibitions in advertising, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion in broadcasting services.' This section states:

Advertisements for products or services coming within the recognised character of, or specifically concerned with, the following will be prohibited:-
(b) Fortune-tellers and the like;'


The voice-over in the advertisement states: -

'Love, happiness, discover your destiny.
Call Irish Psychics Live on [telephone number]

The Commission is of the opinion that this tells the viewer that by calling Irish Psychics Live one can find out what the future holds i.e. 'discover your destiny'. Under Appendix 2(b), such services are prohibited.
The advertiser asserts that this section does not apply to their industry, that they are advertising a general entertainment service. There is no such differentiation made in the 1995 Codes, which defines an advertisement as '(i) any form of announcement, which is inserted in a programme service in consideration of payment or payments or other remuneration made to the broadcaster'. Therefore, whether the service being advertised is for 'entertainment' purposes, or otherwise, is not relevant to the assessment of this complaint.
What is under consideration is the actual service that is being promoted by the advertisement. It is clear that this advertisement promotes, and encourages viewers to call, a service that comes 'within the recognised character of, or (is) specifically concerned with,….fortune-tellers and the like'. This is in contravention of Appendix 2 of the 'Codes of standards, practice and prohibitions in advertising, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion in broadcasting services.' This complaint has been upheld with regard to Section 24(2)(e)(advertising codes) of the Broadcasting Act 2001.

does this mean an end to the ads?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Heres hoping.

6th

As a company I can accept peoples low opinion of them but I wouldnt presume that all their "psychics" are fraudsters.

I'm know fan of IPL and whether they give genuine readings or not, they are all about profit as any "business" should be.

stevenmu

People please try to keep in mind that the libel and defamation laws of this country hold Boards.ie for any comments you make. If you want to make any comments about IPL, or any other company/individual/institution etc, please make sure that they are not in any way libelous or defamatory. I've already had to delete one post I wasn't happy with, I don't want to have to delete any more.



Personally, I'd expect them to just change their slogan to something which would comply with the ruling. Maybe something along the lines of "Discover what your cards hold for you"

Oryx

I just think its funny that on the one hand they are trying to convince us, the public, that they have 'genuine caring psychics'* waiting to take our call, and on the other they try to convince the Commission thats its purely entertainment. Same old story. Gullible? Us?

*Im sure Ive heard this phrase in their radio ads, but is based on recollection. Dont want to see a libel case in my cards.

SkepticOne

The thing is that they are now classified by the BCC as 'fortune tellers and the like' and as such are prohibited from broadcast advertising. If the complaint sent to the ASAI, Realm's defense that they don't claim to have magic powers might have worked or they could continue to advertise by removing such claim.

With the BCC it is not the nature of the ad but the nature of the purported service. They can't continue broadcast advertising without changing themselves in some way. How do they change from being pretend psychics to something else without giving the game away.

I think they will most likely put more money into print media.

TV3 should have known better than to allow people claiming to be psychics to advertise on their channel.

imprezza

SkepticOne wrote:

TV3 should have known better than to allow people claiming to be psychics to advertise on their channel.

I agree with what your saying, but TV 3 are the ones who had so-called psychics on their early morning show who were pure rubbish and anyone could see it, I don't think that station has much cop on about real psychics.

tbh

SkepticOne wrote:

The thing is that they are now classified by the BCC as 'fortune tellers and the like' and as such are prohibited from broadcast advertising. If the complaint sent to the ASAI, Realm's defense that they don't claim to have magic powers might have worked or they could continue to advertise by removing such claim.

With the BCC it is not the nature of the ad but the nature of the purported service. They can't continue broadcast advertising without changing themselves in some way. How do they change from being pretend psychics to something else without giving the game away.

I think they will most likely put more money into print media.

TV3 should have known better than to allow people claiming to be psychics to advertise on their channel.

I'd like to see this: Make the companies run 'crawlers' across the bottom of their ads, in a font no smaller than 1/3 of the font used to display the phone number saying "THIS IS AN ENTERTAINMENT SERVICE ONLY", or words to that effect, for the entire duration of the ad, and enforce the code which clearly states that the company is not allowed to make any claims about being able to see into the future, contact the dead, or give any advice on health matters.

People will still use the service, but at least it'll have to be sold for what (all) it can be proven to be.

I've heard the companies use the defense that they are providing a service, I would prefer it if they used the numbers that charge a fixed rate no matter how long the call lasted. Much more transparent, and much fairer. In my opinion, of course.

lostexpectation

tbh wrote:

I'd like to see this: Make the companies run 'crawlers' across the bottom of their ads, in a font no smaller than 1/3 of the font used to display the phone number saying "THIS IS AN ENTERTAINMENT SERVICE ONLY", or words to that effect, for the entire duration of the ad, and enforce the code which clearly states that the company is not allowed to make any claims about being able to see into the future, contact the dead, or give any advice on health matters.

don't they already do this pretty much, realms got pwned

SkepticOne

lostexpectation wrote:

don't they already do this pretty much, realms got pwned

Yeah. It was not the ads themselves but the company. It doesn't matter how they phrase the ads or what disclaimers they use; as far as the BCC is concerned, they are 'fortune tellers and the like' and as such can't advertise on the broadcast media full stop.

Tbh I don't really care about them relieving people of their money but I'm glad to see the irritating ads going.

The ASAI, on the other hand, judges on advertising practices and covers all media. Here it would be the ad not the company that would be the subject of the complaint and the likes of Realms could get around it with a 'crawler' saying 'we are pretend "psychic" entertainers' or some such. It is only a voluntary code of practice though. The ASAI have no statutary powers.

GuanYin

Lads, I will not only perm ban ANYONE making a defamatory comment on this forum, but I will personally direct the post to the attention of the admins asking for a siteban for the user in question.

We can discuss this topic without resorting to mindless stupidity.

Nevyn

Ok I know boards.ie is a big site and most people just stick to thier favoured forums but there is a bigger picture
and sometimes it helps to have a look at it.

Irish Psychics Live Solicitor’s Request for Apology and Removal of Defamatory Content on boards.ie

http://www.johnbreslin.com/blog/2006/07/07/irish-psychics-live-solicitors-request-for-apology-and-removal-of-defamatory-content-on-boardsie/

That is the blog of Cloud one of the admins and co founders of boards.ie.
I would suggest you read the entry.

GuanYin

Thanks Thaed, I should have linked that.

lostexpectation

Thaedydal wrote:

Ok I know boards.ie is a big site and most people just stick to thier favoured forums but there is a bigger picture
and sometimes it helps to have a look at it.



http://www.johnbreslin.com/blog/2006/07/07/irish-psychics-live-solicitors-request-for-apology-and-removal-of-defamatory-content-on-boardsie/

That is the blog of Cloud one of the admins and co founders of boards.ie.
I would suggest you read the entry.

has anyone done so this time

GuanYin

lostexpectation wrote:

has anyone done so this time

Yes, the posts were deleted.

This is a paranormal forum for discussion of the paranormal, not for venting distaste at anyone or anything.

If you have any other queries or questions about the moderating decisions then take it to feedback - Read the charter.

Zillah

I'm glad that, according to Cloud's blog, they refused to publish an apology. Obviously I'd be happier if they told them to go to hell but its something at least. I do wonder about what legal ground someone selling tarot readings/fortune telling stands on.

GuanYin

They refused to publish and apology because, according to its sign up terms, boards.ie is not liable for the content of users posts. When you agree to the T&C signing up to boards, you assume liability for your posts and content.

Were this not the case, I'm not sure what the outcome would be.

Oryx

Doesnt the burden of proof lie with the libeller (sp?) ? So whoever posted would have to prove what they say.

Zillah

I remember from something a couple years ago, that legally boards is publishing whatever we post, and for sheer practicality they just retro-edit anything offensive, but I think from a legal point of view they're still responsible for whatever is posted. The T&Cs give some wiggle room but its probably moral rather than legal.

This is all just extrapolation though...

GuanYin

Zillah wrote:

I remember from something a couple years ago, that legally boards is publishing whatever we post, and for sheer practicality they just retro-edit anything offensive, but I think from a legal point of view they're still responsible for whatever is posted. The T&Cs give some wiggle room but its probably moral rather than legal.

This is all just extrapolation though...

Oh I agree it is probably moral, but I would question whether the morals would be so important were the T&C not in place.