|
G B Associates Ltd
15 Elvington Road
High Town
Liverpool
L38 9AN Objection to a leaflet, for a business opportunity, that was headed "How To Turn 56p Into £1,500+ Per Week!!!".
The text stated " Now I know that sounds crazy! ... Please allow me to introduce myself; my name is Susan Thirkill and I was introduced to this incredible income generation system by entrepreneur Paul E. Watts ... I have seen proof of his earnings which are currently running just short of £10,000 per month and rising. I can assure you that this is a very viable and exciting proposition! ... The formula for a very high regular income that I would like to introduce you to; ... Is very lucrative (weekly averages of £1,500 weekly and rising are achievable by anyone) ... Literally anyone can do this! You don''t need previous experience, knowledge or contacts ... It really is such a simple way to generate a regular monthly income! ... "; the leaflet included a reply slip that invited recipients to send off for more information by including two first class stamps in the envelope provided and a third stamp to be applied to that envelope. The follow-up literature included a letter that stated "Dear Friend, Thank you for you interest in the information sheet I recently sent you ... ", a "Special Report" that stated "FROM THE DESK OF PAUL E. WATTS" and described the business opportunity further, a list of testimonials under the heading "What ''MAILWEALTH'' subscribers are saying These are just a few of the GENUINE comments from the many that come in every week" and a subscription order form.
1. The complainant, who received the leaflet and follow-up literature, challenged the claim "How To Turn 56p Into £1,500+ Per Week".
2. The Authority challenged the veracity of the testimonials. Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 14.1, 14.3, 14.4, 52.5, 52.7 (Ed 11)
Adjudication:
The advertisers said the MailWealth scheme had been running for a number of years and maintained that it was legal. Susan Thirkill said she had recently cancelled her standing order to MailWealth and was no longer involved with the scheme.
1. Complaint upheld
The Authority considered that the claim implied readers would achieve a weekly income of £1500 or more from an investment of 56p. In the absence of substantiation, the Authority considered that the claim was misleading. It told the advertisers to delete it and to ensure that, in future, they held documentary evidence to substantiate earnings claims. It advised the advertisers to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.
2. Upheld
The Authority was concerned that that the advertisers had not provided substantiation to show that the testimonials were genuine. It told the advertisers to remove the testimonials and to ensure that they held signed and dated proof for all testimonials before using them again in their advertising.
|
Home 
Articles 
