|
Lizann Marketing
PO Box 2003
Glasgow
G32 7QL Complaint:
Objection to a regional advertisement and follow-up literature for a homeworking scheme. The regional press advertisement stated "EARN £250 WEEKLY STUFFING ENVELOPES. S.A.E FOR DETAILS LIZANN MARKETING...".
The follow-up literature stated "...HERE IS YOUR CHANCE: Earn extra money working from home by becoming an active participant of our successful mailing association. You receive cash daily for the envelopes you stuff. There is no limit. You stuff as many as you wish...50p FOR EACH ENVELOPE YOU STUFF...APPLICATION FORM. Send cheque/Postal Order/Cash for £10 etc...". 1. The complainant objected that the advertisement and follow-up literature did not make clear that homeworkers earned money by placing advertisements in other newspapers at their expense to attract more enquiries for the advertisers' scheme by either sending the advertisers' literature to respondents or by sending enquiries in an envelope to the advertisers. 2. The Authority: challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the earnings claim in the advertisement; and 3. objected that the advertisement did not state that a £10 fee was charged. Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 54.2, 54.4 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
1. Complaint upheld The advertisers believed they gave a clear description of how to carry out the work in their follow-up literature. They said it stated clearly that homeworkers would be self-employed and they maintained that concerns or queries were dealt with promptly. The advertiser said requests for information were sent out free of charge and recipients chose, after reading the literature, whether they wanted to join the scheme. The Authority noted the follow-up literature did not describe what the work involved. It mentioned stuffing envelopes, stated the benefits of the scheme, explained how to join the scheme and asked for a £10 registration fee. It did not tell recipients what the work involved or that other costs would be incurred. The Authority reminded the advertisers that the Codes required that a clear description of homework should be given before participants committed themselves. Because they did not state that the work required homeworkers to place advertisements, the Authority considered that the advertisement and follow-up literature were misleading. The Authority asked the advertisers to amend their advertising material to make clear the nature of the work. 2. Upheld The advertisers said it was possible to earn £250 a week with their homeworking scheme. They sent documentary evidence for four of their homeworkers to show they earned £250 a week. The advertisers said in light of the complaint they would amend the claim to read "...earn £££...". The Authority noted the advertisers sent evidence for four homeworkers only. It considered the evidence did not prove that their homeworkers generally earned £250 a week. The Authority was not satisfied the advertisers had substantiated the claim and welcomed their decision to amend it. 3. Upheld The advertisers said when they received an enquiry they sent out information about the scheme and only then did they request a fee. They said if people wanted more information, before committing themselves, all queries were answered personally to ensure respondents were given a clear description of the work before they paid the start-up cost. The Authority noted the advertisement did not state that a £10 registration fee was charged. It reminded the advertisers that the Codes require advertisements to make clear any financial outlay. Because the advertisement did not state that a fee of £10 was required, the Authority considered that it was misleading. The Authority asked the advertisers to amend the advertisement to make clear to readers that the cost of joining the scheme was £10. |
Home 
Articles 
