Deja vu? I've heard that before somewhere.
ASA shakes finger sternly at naughty eBuyer over hard drive promo
Gummy mouthed watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority has again told web shop eBuyer to stop misleading customers over hard drive promos. This is the fourth time in less than a year that the toothless independent regulator has put Huddersfield-based eBuyer on the naughty step for making unjustified savings claims. The …
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 10:42 GMT Da Weezil
ASA Ofcom.. all useless... and the Government are not bothered that these companies are as corrupt ( like Politicians) and lie continuously (like Politicians), and cant be trusted (like Politicians)
Business can do as it likes... as long as it rakes in the VAT for the Exchequer - hell they even turn a blind eye to the sort tax evasion - calling it for what it really is - that would see the ordinary guy locked up.
Nothing new here....
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 18:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
But it's hardly fraud is it? Anybody daft enough to believe a retailer's mendacious claims without checking them deserves to be ripped off. Look at the bogus furniture "sales" year in year out. Look at Royal Wank of Scotland's claim the be "the helpful bank" in their adverts. Look at how anything with "whisper" in its name or adverttising will be noisier than a jet take off. Look at how bog roll is advertised as "koala soft", knowing full well that in the UK we can't verify the claim by seizing the nearest cute marsupial, and striding off with some reading matter.
Yeah,it'd be nice if they were honest in adverts, but I don't see that happening any time soon, and knowing that it is cack makes it easier to ignore.
-
-
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 13:54 GMT VinceH
"Do emails count as advertising?"
Yes.
The CAP code also covers UCE - and has done since before the Privacy & Electronic Communications Regulations were introduced in 2003. However, the last time I wasted my time reporting an instance to them, I heard absolutely nothing back. In other words, they just didn't bother.
-
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 11:06 GMT The Axe
Buyer beware
There should be no need for the ASA. All it does is allow customers who haven't got a brain to complain. Or it allows competitors to pick pedantic holes in an advert rather than compete in the market.
If EBuyer says that you can make a saving of x from an original price of y, it doesn't matter if you've never seen it offered at y. All you do is look at all the other people selling hard drives and if x is cheaper, then you buy it.
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 11:27 GMT A Non e-mouse
Re: Buyer beware
The problem is that a fool and their money are easily parted.
My father taught me never to by a special offer based on the discount, but on the actual price. Even with the sellers special, never-to-be-repeated discount, is it a good deal ? All too often nowadays, I see special offers and think: But this isn't special. Either I can buy it cheaper elsewhere, or you just jacked up the price to generate a false special offer.
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 11:38 GMT Eponymous Cowherd
Re: Buyer beware
If the only thing at issue was false advertising regarding pricing you may have a point.
However the ASA is also there to protect the public from false clams in other areas. Often it isn't possible to discover a claim made in an ad is misleading unless you read through a ream of "small print"
Claims about "unlimited" broadband are a prime example, here.
So the issue isn't that there is no need for the ASA. The issue is that that ASA adjudications are pointless. They only apply to an ad campaign that has already finished ( and, hence done its job), most adjudications are never widely publicised (so the public isn't warned about a company's propensity to make false claims) and the ASA has no powers to fine or otherwise actively punish the offender.
So the principle behind the ASA is sound, the trouble is the ASA in its current form and with its current powers, is virtually pointless
-
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 11:26 GMT Richard Boyce
Change of culture at Ebuyer
Ebuyer used to say that they don't divulge private customer details to third parties, and I have valued that for years. It was a shock discover that they've done a 180 degree turn.
I discovered this when I got an email from revoo.com asking me for a review of a product I'd bought from Ebuyer. A complaint to Ebuyer produced a reference to their current terms and conditions. A part of the site that still promised privacy at that time appears to be gone now.
There is no way to opt out of this online, though they have assured me that they will respect my wish for privacy in the future. However, their terms and conditions remain, and probably their attitude remains. They never did give me the contact details for their data controller, despite saying they would do so.
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 11:39 GMT James Pickett
I'm not sure why the ASA exists, since it only seems to be able to act after the fact. Advertisers can say what they like, in the full knowledge that by the time the ASA has waited for someone to point it out, thought about it, conferred with all parties, made some extra-strong coffee and finally reached a judgement, the campaign will be over and the message/damage will be complete.
I had a go at them over the government's 'turn the light off or your dog will drown' campaign against the Evil CO2, and that took weeks to resolve, ending up in a length 'statement' and no action whatever.
Tossers.
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 19:11 GMT BlueGreen
I wnt to the ASA and got results about a particularly silly claim
Their default position is "it's not a problem" and they are a bit stupid, however you go back to them *pointing out the particular violation of their code* you get results. It does take a little persistence though (and for you to actually be right, which you may or may not have been here, I don't know the details).
-
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 12:20 GMT Derichleau
I kicked these jokers into touch a long time ago
They sent me a promotional e-mail quite a few years after I'd place my last order with them. I wasn't happy that they were still processing my data many years later so I submitted a section 11 DPA98 request and made it clear that I would seek a court order if they continued to send me direct marketing. I won't be doing business with them again.
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 19:54 GMT Alan Brown
ASA == trade association.
They exist in order to dupe the public into thinking there's an active regulator.
The _only_ thing they can do if the advertiser refuses to cooperate is to refer things to the OFT - which might get a bit more attention than from the average pleb on the streets, but it usually adds 3-6 months to the process of getting OFT's attention in the first place.
ICSTIS used to be the same, they now (as PPP) have a tiny bit of statutory power delegated by Ofcom in order to be able to justify the "regulator" tag they appropriated for themselves but in reality if an offender refuses to cooperate the only thing they can do is refer to Ofcom.
It's rather telling that the govt outfit with the best track record (and it's pretty mediocre at best) of taking on spam and other stuff is the ICO.
-
Wednesday 17th October 2012 21:27 GMT David Pollard
Toothless? Effective all the same.
The regulator may indeed be somewhat dentally challenged, but at least the ruling has opened up a certain amount of press coverage. I haven't checked if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but quite a few Reg readers will have been reminded that special offers from this particular retailer may not actually be all that special. This might well be sufficient to make them think twice before doing it again.