|
Leading Edge Inc
Castell House
4 Castell Y Fan
Caerphilly
Mid Glamorgan
CF83 3JL Complaint:
Objections to a direct mailing, for a home-working scheme, that claimed " ... All we need you to do is undertake ... work for which we pay £250.00 per 1000 envelopes.
There is a huge demand for our Mail Order audio cassettes, CD''s computer programmes, books, Internet products and Internet Web site design services ... ".
1. One of the complainants challenged the claim "There is a huge demand for our Mail Order audio cassettes, CD''s computer programmes, books, Internet products and Internet Web site design services".
2. Both complainants, who were not paid by the advertisers because their work was considered to be of an unacceptable standard, challenged whether the scheme was genuine.
3. The Authority challenged the claim "we pay £250.00 per 1000 envelopes". Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 54.4 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers sent a CD-ROM, which contained samples of a selection of their products. The Authority noted the CD-ROM contained several reports and e-books about money making schemes. It considered that the advertisers had not demonstrated they sold audio cassettes, computer programmes or provided a web site design service. The Authority also considered the advertisers had not shown that they had a large demand for their products and services. The Authority asked the advertisers to remove the claim from the mailing and advised them to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Copy Advice team when preparing future similar mailings.
2. Complaints upheld
The advertisers asserted that full instructions about the nature of the work and the standard required were stated clearly. They maintained that agents, whose work was considered to be of a satisfactory standard, were paid 25 pence for each item plus postage costs; they argued that the mailing made that clear. They explained that agents who completed five batches of work were paid 50 pence for each item and were refunded their £40 administration deposit. The advertisers sent the names and addresses of agents who they asserted had been paid for their work and reimbursed postage costs and the administration deposit; the Authority wrote to six agents, four of whom responded and confirmed that the advertisers had paid them at the advertised rates. The advertisers refused, however, to tell the Authority the number of agents whose work had been rejected. Although it acknowledged that some agents had been paid for their work, in the absence of information on how many agents had had their work rejected, the Authority was not convinced the scheme was genuine. The Authority asked the advertisers not to advertise again until they could show the scheme was genuine.
3. Not upheld
The advertisers sent the names and addresses of agents who they asserted were paid £250 for completing 1000 envelopes or 25 pence for each completed envelope; the Authority wrote to six agents, four of whom responded and confirmed that the advertisers had paid them at the advertised rates. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had substantiated the claim.
The Authority was concerned that the mailing contained several misleading claims that had not been complained about. It asked the advertisers to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before distributing the mailing again. |
Home 
Articles 
