Leo Grobler |
Dear Consumers,
The ASA has been set up by its media members to police advertising to protect you the
Here’s how well it does it and how
utterly ridiculous
it is.
Ridiculous website: Being years out of date it is a shocking advertisement for advertising
and an indictment on the media organisations that fund it. Examples: The latest Annual Report is for 2007/8; Statistics are for
2009/2010; Ad-Alerts were last issued in 2010 and its most recent Precedent
Manual which it was proud to announce has rulings made six years ago.
MSIBI - no joke |
Ridiculous Preamble
to its Code of Advertising Practice:
This lists its very
admirable requirements for advertising such as being legal, truthful, prepared with a sense of responsibility to the consumer and that
it should not
bring
advertising into disrepute or reduce confidence in it. But the rider tells us that none of these
requirements can be used as a basis for a com plaint.
So what they are there for is anybody’s guess.
Ridiculous
ruling it can’t enforce: That’s the
background to the ridiculous way my com plaints
were handled. A Tshwane University of Technology Professor Rudi de Lange com plained about the claims made by a Dr Semba on his
own website. De Lange believed the title “Dr” was used to make the ad more
believable.
Semba said he could cure epilepsy, high
blood pressure and other ailments with his psychic powers and he undertook to solve the
problem of miscarriages by warding off any spirit or demon that has
been tormenting your productivity.
According to the ASA website De Lange submitted, in essence that
the advertiser does not hold substantiation as proof
that his methods have the ability to cure the diseases mentioned. As such, the
advertiser exploits consumer’s superstitions and beliefs.
He quoted clauses of the ASA’s Code of Advertising Practice to
back his com plaint.
The ASA decided that as it had not been able to get a response from Semba it had to go on what De Lange had submitted.
Clause 4.1 required advertisers to
hold substantiation for any claims made in their advertisements. But in this
case the advertiser did not produce any proof of this in spite of being asked
to do so.
The
Ridiculous ASA ruled that Dr Semba had
to withdraw his ad with “immediate effect” even though it has no power to
control these. Two months or more later the ad was still on the internet unchanged.
"Our
enforcement abilities are som ewhat
limited at present," Leo Grobler the ASA’s Manager, Dispute
Resolutions told me
referring to online advertising.
As I understand it the ASA can only control advertising placed with its media members.
As part of its ruling the Ridiculous ASA
made this admission that it was concerned about the proliferation of charlatan healers who used unregulated forms of the media like the internet to promoted their businesses based on unsubstantiated claims.
"The
ASA has ruled against such advertisements on numerous occasions in recent
years,"it went on. "And it is hoped that the appropriate authorities will address this
issue, as it is no doubt causing harm to the credibility of legitimate healers
and practitioners and this industry at large."
THIS
BOLD STATEMENT BECAME EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS
WHEN YOU READ WHAT MY EXPERIENCE WAS.
My post of 4 December 2013 headed THE CITIZEN'S ALADDIN’S CAVE OF UNBELIEVABLE ADVERTS (Dubious Ads)exposed the fact that this Johannesburg based, daily paper carried pages
of smalls ads that made claims similar to the ones Dr Semba was making.
Even the paper’s Editor Steve n Motale agreed with me that they were not
believable.
So as the paper was still carrying them
more than two months after my post appeared unchallenged I com plained to the ASA about them.
I submitted pages of these ads taken from the February 26 and March 4 2014 editions of The Citizen together with a report from The Times about the De Lange ruling. I pointed
out that the ads were clearly unbelievable and that many of them
involved people calling themselves “Dr” or giving themselves other titles which
were also clearly not true. I pointed out that the paper’s Editor had agreed
the ads were not believable.
Grobler replied saying that I had to
submit a separate com plaint for each
ad and each advertiser would then be asked to com ment
before the ASA made a ruling.
Add caption |
The first one concerned Baba Meseko’s unbelievable pr
The reasons I gave for my com plaints were that the prom ises
of easy money were obviously not true and nor was the guarantee to bring back lost lover.
I also submitted that the ad did not com ply with various Clauses of the ASA’s Code of Conduct and I gave four examples.
One of them was that according to Clause 4.2.1 headed Misleading Claims an ad should not
contain anything that is likely to mislead the consumer.
Another one that I quoted was 4.1 headed Substantiation. This stipulates that before
advertising is published all advertisers must have documentary
evidence to support all claims that are capable
of objective substantiation.
This was
exactly the same
one De Lange used as part of his com plaint.
Having told me that the ASA is required to act as a neutral
and independent arbiter and that com plainants
were not
required to prove their case but were expected to clearly make their
case, Grobler kicked this one of mine into touch as well as all my
other ones, which were very similar.
"You are telling us
how you perceived the ad, but you have not yet articulated on what basis you
believe that the advertiser has contravened the provisions of the Code," he told me.
This sounded like an echo of a reply I got som e time ago from
Puseletso Mahlangu, a Consultant in his department, when I had com plained about get-rich-quick ads in the Sunday
Times. She told me: "The letters of com plaint
clearly identify the aspects of the advertising
you find objectionable, however you offer no grounds of com plaint
as far as the advertising is concerned."
YOU HAVE TO GO
SOME TO GET MORE RIDICULOUS THAN THAT.
And the fact that Grobler refused to consider my com plaints any further on the grounds that they were "not properly motivated" was even more ridiculous if one looks at the ASA’s Ad-Alert list on its website.
This is sent to all aspects of the media to ensure that those with an adverse
ruling, who have not responded, can not advertise again. Significantly nearly
half those on the list of 19 were traditional healers with names not unlike
those in the ads I com plained about.
Here are som e of them Dr M.K Bumba, Prof John & Mama Mai, Dr
Phamy Rehema, Prof Wakho and so on.
Could it be that the"neutral and independent arbiter" standard
set by the ASA got affected by
previous posts on my blog that were highly critical of the ASA.
Or was it that a com plaint
from a university professor carried
more weight than any of mine?
My post about the get-rich-quick ads in the Sunday
Times was headed Advertising Standards Authority’s bungling, bunglers.
In that case my three com plaints were accepted but they then apparently got
lost due to various problems. With the result that nearly a year and half later Grobler
apologised saying that because of the delays they were unable to
finish what they started.
Like all good police forces the ASA police don’t get off their butts
until there is a com plaint and as
none of mine have been accepted it can justify turning a blind eye to what is
going on at The Citizen. So it looks
as though the paper, that claims to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in
its editorial side, can go on making money punting these fairy tales in its ads
to its gullible readers.
THAT DEAR CONSUMERS IS HOW THE ASA PROTECTS YOU FROM
UNSCRUPULOUS ADVERTISERS. AND THAT’S HOW REALLY ‘CONCERNED’ THE ASA IS ABOUT THE
‘PROLIFERATION OF CHARLATAN HEALERS.’
TO ME THE ASA LOOKS LIKE A NEWSPAPER PROTECTION SOCIETY THAT IS NOT UNBIASED AT ALL BECAUSE ALL THOSE ADS IN THE CITIZEN ARE EARNING IT A LOT OF MONEY.
TO ME THE ASA LOOKS LIKE A NEWSPAPER PROTECTION SOCIETY THAT IS NOT UNBIASED AT ALL BECAUSE ALL THOSE ADS IN THE CITIZEN ARE EARNING IT A LOT OF MONEY.
Oh I nearly forgot. Grobler told me
that the ASA’s jurisdiction did not
empower it to prevent newspapers from
accepting ads of this kind. That shows once again how ridiculous it is. He suggested I
contact the Print & Digital Media SA
(PDMSA) which has "som e say over the business practices of publications."
So this is what I did. Is the PDMSA just as ridiculous as the ASA? You’ll have to read my next post
for the answer to that.
Regards,
Jon, the Poor Man’s Press
Ombudsman
P.S. Before I published this I sent it to Grobler. I
invited him to make factual corrections and to com ment
if he wished. I got no reply.