Technics Pro has never heard of its competition, apparently

Some strange goings-on captured in the latest Advertising Standards Authority judgements, with a mysterious case of a competition prize.

Technics Pro, a company which sells (as the name implies) Technics kit, sent a sloppy but exciting tweet:

A competition on Twitter stated "Congratulations to [name] who is the winner of a free customized turntable! Don't loose [sic] hope as we will have alot [sic] more giveaways to come, and rthe [sic] next winner could be you!"

The winner was thrilled - a free turntable! What could be better.

Trouble is, the turntable never arrived. He complained to the ASA; they asked Technics Pro about the missing prize.

Technics Pro didn't, to their credit, pretend not to be a turntable business ("hello? no, this is, erm, a laundrette..." but they did try this response:

Technics Pro said they did not remember publishing any advertising of this kind.

Guys, that happens. How many times has a ticket holder turned up at Lotto headquarters only to be met with blank stares and someone muttering "Yew-Row-Millie-Yons? I don't think we do a YewRowMillieYons contest, do we?"

The ASA upheld the complaint - as the internet hadn't forgotten the competition, even if Technics Pro had - and warned the company to be more careful in future. It might be a moot point - the technicspro.com website has vanished and their Facebook presence hasn't been updated since Christmas.

Holy Fuck banned from the listings

Like most people, I like to spend Sunday lunchtime catching up with recent judgements from the Advertising Standards Authority, and discovered last month they upheld a complaint about an advert in The Guardian Guide which included Holy Fuck in the listings:

The ASA noted that the word "HOLYFUCK" was the name of the advertised band and we also noted that the Guide was targeted at older teens and adults. However, we considered that, because it was placed in an entertainment listings supplement to a national newspaper, the ad was likely to be seen by a wide variety of readers including children. We considered, in that context, that the name "HOLYFUCK" was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to some readers.

Effectively, it's made it impossible to promote a Holy Fuck gig with advertising anywhere in the UK. Blimey. Or, indeed, holy fuck.

Cheryl Cole's adverts fine, apparently

This is a bit of an open-and-shut case, right? Cheryl Cole appeared in an advert for Nestle L'oreal, punting some hair gunk which said could give her hair like hers. Except it couldn't, because she had hair extensions in. Oh, and you can't even use the product if you've got hair extensions. Not the worst piece of duplicitous advertising, but still, worthy of a reminder not to fib, eh, Advertising Standards Authority?

Apparently not.

We considered consumers would understand the message of the ads to be that the product could have some positive and achievable effect on their weak, dull, limp and lifeless hair but that they would not be misled into believing that, by just using the product, it would replicate for them the fullness of Cheryl Coles hair, because hers had been professionally styled. We concluded that the ads did not misleadingly exaggerate the effects of the product.

That's a bit weird - 'it's okay to illustrate your product with a totally impossible result because, hey, the schleps who slap L'Oreal on their heads are already crushed by life enough to know they're never going to look like Cheryl Cole" - but I can understand the logic.

But advertising a product that you can't use with hair extensions by using a model with hair extensions in - that, surely, is wrong, ASA?

We noted ad (a) showed Cheryl Cole wearing hair extensions but did not state that the product was suitable for use with extensions. We considered the text "Styled with some natural hair extensions" was likely to be interpreted as suggesting the models hairstyle included extensions, not that the product was suitable to care for them. We also considered viewers were likely to understand that they would need to check before using a product on their particular type of hair extensions. We concluded that the ad was not misleading.

Why not go the whole hog and just get someone in wearing a wig and a hat?

Still, nice to see self-regulation knows the job is to always err on the side of the advertiser than logic or honesty. Because they're worth it.

Duffy can bike, if she likes

There were complaints, you know, about Duffy's Diet Coke advert. The Advertising Standards Authority has considered the ones about her lack of safety equipment - the more visceral 'why, in god's name, why?' ones are outside their remit.

And the ASA says it's okay:

The authority said the cycling sequence was clearly "unreal and fantastical" and the ad was not shown around programmes children were likely to be watching.

The report continued "...and besides, it's Duffy -if she rode down the street in a way that drew attention to herself, she'd be making herself a target, wouldn't she? Some people are better off skulking about in the shadows, knoworramean?"

Actually, Coke denied she had ridden her bicycle without proper preparation:

Coca-Cola said it carried out a "vigorous" assessment of highway code regulations. Duffy had been wearing a black and white sequined top that reflected light and gave her a "luminous glow" so that she stood out in the dark. The soft drinks company added that the bike had lights.

"No, officer, my headlights might be out, but look at the luminous glow I'm giving off. I'm able to see three miles ahead using my aura alone."

Still, the news that the advertising agency spent so long reading the Highway Code explains why they clearly only had about three minutes to come up with that awful "Hello You" slogan.

Iggy Pop isn't selling car insurance. Not any more.

The ASA has banned Iggy Pop from advertising SwiftCover car insurance. Not because they want to save him from himself, but because Swiftcover don't cover musicians:

Because the policy was promoted by a well-known musician, which might lead some viewers to believe the policy covered those who worked in entertainment, when it did not, and because Iggy Pop did not have a policy with Swiftcover, we concluded the ad was misleading.

Interesting - so it's unacceptable for an insurance advert to feature an entertainer who would be ineligible for that product? I wonder if that ruling will affect anyone else?

Calm down, dear... it's just the ASA...

Baby got a gun and gone

In what clearly wasn't a bid to generate a little extra publicity, James have designed an album sleeve and had it banned by the Advertising Standards Authority, because it has a baby and a gun on it. Larry Gott explains:

“We talked at length about hitting a problem with the Advertising Standards Authority, but it’s such a strong image we decided it go with it anyway.

“The scale of the reaction has been a surprise, but we kind of expected there’d be some ripples. We were looking at lots of ideas with the designers and they came up with an image of a baby and a gun that related to a story in America of a ten month old child that had been issued a firearms certificate.

“Firearms are dangerous, they’re not to be taken likely, and we as a society are becoming over familiarised with the image of gun and gun culture.”

If we wanted to be over cynical, we might wonder if choosing a cover that would run into a little eye-catching trouble might be a better way of marketing a James album than a few hundred poster locations.

Win prizes: Get to be quite near Marti Pellow

A heartbreaking tale from the latest batch of Advertising Standards Authority judgements, about a person who entered the Sheffield Star's Meet Wet Wet Wet competition, and won, only to find:

although she was in the vicinity of the band, she did not meet them.

Understandably, 'be in the vicinity of Wet Wet Wet' hadn't been considered as an attractive offer for the front of the paper, but the paper tried to mount a defence:

Sheffield Newspapers claimed that the chance to "meet" the band, as described in the front-page flash, meant the chance to be in their presence, to encounter them and to come together at the spectacle. They argued that the prize was detailed in the competition copy itself and delivered as described.

Furthermore, they said, the organisers let two of the prize winner's mates in for free and:

They asserted that the winner and her guests were in the presence of the band and that the lead singer blew the winner a kiss.

Come on, how much more of a meeting do you want than having someone mime a kiss from across a room at you?

Understandably, the ASA was having none of this:

We considered readers would understand from the claim "meet ..." that winners would come face to face with the band and would have the opportunity to interact with them in some way, for example by speaking to them or being photographed with them.

Indeed, trying to tell people that being in the same place as someone constitutes having a meeting with them - isn't that what low-level stalkers do?

The Greatest Love Of All

When it was pushing Whitney Houston's first post-crack greatest hits album before Christmas, Sony BMG trumpeted:

a collection of all her biggest hits, together on one CD for the very first time

A TV viewer, who'd already bought a Greatest Hits collection with all but one of the songs on, thought this claim a trifle odd and complained to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Sony's defence? Ah, yes, the songs have been released on a package before, but this is the first time they've been on a single disc:

Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Sony) said The Ultimate Collection was a one disc CD, whereas The Greatest Hits album, which was released in 2000, was a two disc CD. The ad was therefore referring to the fact that Whitney Houstons greatest hits were appearing on one disc for the first time and was intended to distinguish The Ultimate Collection from The Greatest Hits. They believed the claim was correct and truthful. They said they had deliberately avoided stating that the greatest hits were together on one album for the first time, because they believed the term album was generally used to describe a collection of recordings, whereas the term CD was generally used to describe the music format.

Clearcast (formerly the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre) endorsed Sonys comments. They said the claim "together on one CD for the very first time" described the format of the album and how many discs it comprised and was literally correct. They said many ads for artists and bands referred to their new albums; a format was specified only if it was a special edition. They argued that consumers who already owned The Greatest Hits would recognise the songs played in the ad and would be alerted to the fact that they were now available on a single disc, whereas consumers who had not bought The Greatest Hits and wanted all of Whitney Houstons greatest hits on one CD would receive exactly that if they purchased The Ultimate Collection; they therefore believed the ad would not mislead viewers.

Surprisingly, this 'it might not be the first time they've been in a single jewel case, but they've never been on a single disc inside a jewel case' defence was allowed by the Advertising Standards Authority.