[Long] ASA vs CTC

[Peter Amey]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the
>>one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car
>>advertising.
>
>
> Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which claimed a
> car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, when in fact it was
> only safest for adult occupants, not child occupants. The rejection failed
> to appreciate that I'd stated that quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea
> of advertising cars as safe that ****** me off in the first place, but...)
>

I had some success against Saab's claim of "safest in class" by pointing
out that it scored less well on pedestrian safety than other cars. Saab
agreed not to use the ad again (but probably had no plans to anyway).

Peter

--

www.amey.org.uk

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:[email protected],
Peter Amey <[email protected]> typed:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the
>>> one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car
>>> advertising.
>>
>>
>> Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which
>> claimed a car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family,
>> when in fact it was only safest for adult occupants, not child
>> occupants. The rejection failed to appreciate that I'd stated that
>> quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea of advertising cars as safe
>> that ****** me off in the first place, but...)
>
> I had some success against Saab's claim of "safest in class" by
> pointing out that it scored less well on pedestrian safety than other
> cars. Saab agreed not to use the ad again (but probably had no plans
> to anyway).

I mentioned pedestrian safety as well. Doubtless that confused my argument.

Here's what I wrote:
***
The car is claimed to be the safest vehicle in its class according to
EuroNCAP. It is pictured on a beach with a young family walking away from
it. While the Scénic is the best model tested by EuroNCAP in its class in
terms of adult safety, the Ford Focus C-MAX scores 1 star more for child
protection, and for pedestrian safety, it (the Scénic) is described as
average, and disappointing for a newly designed model. I see this as
potentially misleading buyers into thinking that it will offer most
protection for their children, and its failure to mention the (relatively
high) danger it poses to pedestrians as potentially encouraging complacency,
as well as failing to fully substantiate the claim.
***
Could have done without the last part of the last sentence, but otherwise
fairly coherent. Maybe a lengthier description would have helped.

A

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:[email protected],
Peter Amey <[email protected]> typed:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the
>>> one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car
>>> advertising.
>>
>>
>> Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which
>> claimed a car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family,
>> when in fact it was only safest for adult occupants, not child
>> occupants. The rejection failed to appreciate that I'd stated that
>> quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea of advertising cars as safe
>> that ****** me off in the first place, but...)
>
> I had some success against Saab's claim of "safest in class" by
> pointing out that it scored less well on pedestrian safety than other
> cars. Saab agreed not to use the ad again (but probably had no plans
> to anyway).

I mentioned pedestrian safety as well. Doubtless that confused my argument.

Here's what I wrote:
***
The car is claimed to be the safest vehicle in its class according to
EuroNCAP. It is pictured on a beach with a young family walking away from
it. While the Scénic is the best model tested by EuroNCAP in its class in
terms of adult safety, the Ford Focus C-MAX scores 1 star more for child
protection, and for pedestrian safety, it (the Scénic) is described as
average, and disappointing for a newly designed model. I see this as
potentially misleading buyers into thinking that it will offer most
protection for their children, and its failure to mention the (relatively
high) danger it poses to pedestrians as potentially encouraging complacency,
as well as failing to fully substantiate the claim.
***
Could have done without the last part of the last sentence, but otherwise
fairly coherent. Maybe a lengthier description would have helped.

A

 

[Patrick Herring]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
....
| >10. challenged whether the leaflet''s criticism of the claims "Cycle
| >helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" and
| >"Over 70% of child cyclist deaths involve head injury" and the claims
| >"In places where helmet use has become significant, there has been no
| >detectable reduction in head injuries relative to cycle use ... The
| >research on which the prediction was made has been widely criticised for
| >comparing two quite different groups of cyclists" were misleading,
| >especially because the latter two claims implied objective peer-view
| >criticism, not opinion;
| >10. Complaints upheld
|
| Which is bizarre, because they also held in a separate case that these
| figures could not be justified!
|
| This refers to a "myths and facts" section. If you look at what they
| are saying, and this is also based on the exchanges of letters
| beforehand, they do not dispute that the things presented as myths are
| (a) claims made by the pro-helmet lobby and (b) insupportable; neither
| do they dispute that we have robust evidence to support each of the
| claims made as "fact" - their beef was (and for the life of me I
| cannot see this) that the acknowledged facts do not negate the
| acknowledged myths.
|
| There was a lot of argument about this and they were very clear: they
| accept that the myths are myths, that the judgment of them as myths is
| largely based on the facts presented, and that the facts are facts,
| but not that the facts contradict the myths. Go figure.

It reads to me as an argument from authority: that the leaflet appears
to claim an equal authority for the facts (aka "concerned but informal
pointing out of troublesome contrary indicators") against the existing
authority for the myths (aka "objective peer-reviewed research") and
that it's that that's misleading.

I guess the legal mind distinguishes between "proven in law" and
"proven in experience & clear inspection of the bleeding obvious". I
imagine some subtle re-wording would do the trick but I can't quite
torture my mind into seeing what that might be.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph.html