EXPLORING THE MYSTERIES OF THE THINKING AT DStv WITH THE MAN AT THE TOP

Dear DStv Subscribers,

Mark

          As one myself I thought I would find out what Mark Rayner had to say about various aspects of what we have been watching that have been bugging me for some time. He is the CEO of MultiChoice the owners of DStv that has a total of some 18-million subscribers, not only in South Africa but in other parts of our continent.

          Here’s what I put to him on Monday 6 July followed by his answers. My additional comments are in italics.

Content & Repeats

Me: As there are so many repeats of shows why is it not possible to ensure that they do not appear at about the same time night after night? This sort of thing happens often. The Graham Norton show on 120 was an example in the last few days.

Mark: Regarding content, as Africa’s most loved storyteller we invest significantly into both local and international content – partnering with both local talent and the world’s best production studios to ensure our customers have an unrivalled selection to choose from.  DStv has one of the lower repeat rates globally, but the amount of TV watched per day in Africa – amongst the highest globally - means repeats are sometimes inevitable. We actively push our channel suppliers for fresher content and have started flagging which content is “new” to promote customer awareness. Channels also have strict performance criteria to ensure fresh hours and ratings remain at acceptable levels. He missed my point which was: It is surely possible, or should be, to schedule shows so that the same repeat does not appear night after night virtually at the same time. I don’t accept that repeats are “inevitable.” They are clearly there because they are cheaper than buying new shows. The “new” labels are very often not true anyway. If DStv was in the shoe business how long would it last if customers heard that the “new” shoes they had bought had already been worn for several days by somebody else?

Promotions

Me: The promos appear to be increasingly over done. The way they interrupt the shows that you are watching without warning sometimes makes you think you have flipped channels by mistake. Talk about Pointless. The one for this even interrupts the actual Pointless show while you are watching it. (I’m not talking about when the promo is connected to the bed that is being advertised). How inane is that? And this sort of thing is not uncommon with other promos. In general they are very often pointless because what they tell you makes nonsense of what you can actually see. As

an example the film MacDonald & Dodd appeared at around 6.00 pm last Saturday with a promo telling us it would be on at 8.00 pm on Monday. The film was repeated again last night (Sunday) at the about the same time while the promo continued to tell us to expect it tonight (Monday) at 8.00 pm. When it was screened on the Monday we were told in the top left hand corner it was NEW.

Mark: On the issue of promotions, it’s important we ensure our customers are aware of what is available to watch so that they get the most of their subscription. That said, a promotion that advertises something in the past is clearly not acceptable. Some promos are scheduled by us as DStv and some by the channel themselves, in this case the BBC. The scheduling of DStv promos has been a manual one which can be prone to human error from time to time. Since we are committed to providing customers with a quality viewing experience, we have introduced a new technology for DStv promo scheduling that will significantly reduce the occurrence of over exposure to a particular promotion by applying more accurate targeting of promos to the relevant viewing segments and limiting the number of runs of any particular promo to avoid overkill.  Regarding the BBC specific promos, we have shared your concerns – and you are not the first customer to raise this – with the BBC to address directly on the channels under their control. Please let us know if you experience any improvement over the coming weeks and months. To clarify with regards to the series, McDonald & Dodds, it premieres on Mondays with repeats on a Wednesday at 21:00, Saturday at 18:50 and Sunday at 20:30 – to give viewers other opportunities to see the show.

Timing of Shows

Me: When it comes to deciding when to put on shows there doesn’t seem to be any planning at all. How sensible is it to have a Christmas episode of QI in June? And to have a Paul O’Grady dog one at 10.00 at night?

Mark: According to our research, and viewership patterns, we find most viewers prefer watching QI in sequence and channels typically do not skip over these for that reason. Unless I can’t see for looking QI has stand alone episodes. They don’t follow one another in any kind of sequence and you don’t have to have watched one episode to enable you to follow the one that comes after that.

Competitions

Me: Regarding competitions like the Great British Bake Off surely it would be better to finish showing the various episodes before starting the repeats otherwise viewers don’t know where they are.

Mark: Third-party channels, for example BBC BRIT which broadcasts among others, the Great British Bake-Off, are responsible for their own broadcasts and content inventory. Although they often broadcast episodes of the same season before the full season ends, we have made them aware that it is confusing to some customers.  Confusing is an understatement. It’s a competition that has quite a number of episodes before the winner is chosen. So if the BBC repeats episodes along the way viewers can be left wondering whether they will ever see the final.

Cricket

Me: When it comes to the shortened form of any type of cricket, who came up with the idea of making them more boring than even the dullest part of a normal test match with every shot being repeated two or three times and even more often if somebody goes out. We are being taken for complete dumb dumbs. Surely people would be more interested in seeing more of the match than all these unrealistic repeats.

Mark: SuperSport remains of the leading sports broadcasters in the world. The team is continuously striving to improve its offering, and with the growth of short format viewing we understand how important this is to satisfy and keep sports fans stimulated. Our production team is constantly improving the quality of highlight packages. At the same time our technology division is exploring a growing global trend to utilise machine learning to improve these highlights.  As a cricket fan and former player myself, I do sometimes share your frustration that a short highlights reel doesn’t capture all the key moments in a game. For that reason we schedule longer highlights versions too for key games. We’ve shared your comments with the SuperSport cricket production team.

My First Question

Me: How about conducting a survey among DStv subscribers to see what they think about all the promos we have to contend with to get some entertainment and various other aspects of what we are given?

Mark: He steered well clear of this question. Would this be too risky in case what the majority of viewers actually think would involve too much of an overhaul of what is currently being screened?

                                               *    *    *    *

Mark finished his reply to me by saying: “We strive at all times to provide an uninterrupted video entertainment service with the best available content for our valued customers.” Do you subscribers agree that this is what you get?

Thanks Mark for your prompt and comprehensive answers.

Regards,

Jon, a Consumer Watchdog who hopes he got his fellow subscribers the answers to some of the concerns they might have had about what we pay for when we sign up for DStv.

 See:DStv's all new claims

HOW TRUE ARE ADVERTISEMENTS SHOWN ON DStv?

Dear TV Watchers,

Dana Lebowitz of ADCOCO

          Are you being deceived by some of the advertisers on South Africa’s DStv?

          I concede that it can’t be expected to investigate every advertisement that is submitted, but it would surely be in its own interests to get those making outlandish claims to substantiate them before their ads are accepted.

          Carrying ones that are suspect casts doubt on the validity of DStv’s ads in general.

          As I expected it does not “judge the authenticity of advertiser’s claims.” This is what Fahmeeda Cassim-Surtee CEO of DStv’s Media Sales told me.

          They leave it to viewers to root out their advertising bad eggs by complaining to the Adverting Regulatory Board.

          Here are a couple of the most glaring examples where the advertiser can’t even back up it own claims with solid proof, so you know what that means – you are being conned.

Alpecin German Engineering for your hair: The manufacturers of this shampoo have been denigrating German Engineering with their advertisement for this shampoo, because this is far from being a hair raising story.

          Its TV ads were banned in Britain but that hasn’t stopped it’s promoters from telling the same lie half a world away to Africans on DStv.

          Alpecin is a caffeine shampoo produced by Dr Kurt Wolff’s family business GmbH & Co in Germany and distributed in South Africa by its agent ACDOCO.

          On DStv viewers were told: "If hair growth is waning more and more men choose the caffeine based shampoo by Alpecin. During hair washing the highly dosed Alpecin penetrates the hair follicle."

          Dana Lebowitz is ACDOCO’s Marketing Manager in South Africa, and as such I thought she would immediately be able to give me the evidence to substantiate the claims being made for this shampoo. So I put three questions to her.

          I asked for independent scientific evidence that Alpecin reduced hair loss and that it penetrated the hair follicle. I also wanted to know if the veracity of the claims being made for this shampoo in advertisements had ever been questioned anywhere in the world.

          She replied promptly saying that she had sent my questions to the manufacturer in Germany for “further information.”

          Surely when her firm agreed to market this shampoo it would have cleared up the points I was raising before it became an Alpecin distributor. I concluded she was just stringing me along. 

          I then asked when she expected to hear from Germany. On  November 8 I sent a third email telling her that if I did not hear from her by 11 November I would assume that neither her firm nor the German manufacturers had any independent proof that this shampoo reduced hair loss or that it penetrated hair follicles.

          She replied the same day with her idea of proof which was a list of eight names of people she claimed had done “scientific studies.” She gave no further details.

          The Wall Street Journal reported that this shampoo was tested in studies published in 2010 and 2013 in the Journal of Applied Cosmetology. It quoted dermatologist Leonard Celleno, one of those named in Leibovitz’s list, as saying: “There was a little bit of hair regrowth seen in the studies, but it does not mean your hair will grow like you were 20 years old.” 

          He is a researcher at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome. Significantly the studies were funded by the manufacturer, the paper revealed.
          Britain's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) stated: "Taking into account the body of evidence, we considered that we had not seen any studies of the actual product as used by consumers on their scalp using an accurate analysis of hair growth, in a well-designed and well-conducted trial."
          It didn't think much of the fact that some results were measured by a "hair pull" test. 

           Alpecin's case was so flimsy that the ASA banned it's makers from saying it can “help to reduce hair loss” in any adverts.  It ruled last year that this “had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.”
          So much for all the “scientific studies” Dana Liebowitz referred me to.

Aquafresh Toothpaste: This is made and marketed in South Africa by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a giant British multinational, pharmaceutical company.

          Its goal, it claims, “Is to be one of the world’s most innovative, best performing and trusted healthcare companies.

          “Our values are Patient focus, Transparency, Respect, Integrity.

          “Everyone at GSK is focused on 3 priorities – Innovation, Performance, Trust” (Highlights are mine).

          This is what it tells us on its website. Now see how these all encompassing brags match up to my experience.

          Its Aquafresh ads that have appeared on DStv show a superman, cartoon like character in the red, white and blue stripes that are characteristic of this brand of toothpaste. He taps the side of a large tooth and tells us that he can “strengthen the enamel.”

          The ad appeared on Channel 135 on 17 October 2019 and on numerous other occasions.

          So I set out to see if GSK has any independent scientific evidence to back this unbelievable claim only to find that its public relations at its Johannesburg office was absolutely appalling. Over a period of perhaps three weeks I phoned almost every day in an effort to speak to the person in charge of the South African operation. 

          The woman on the switchboard assured me that Kimberley Hunt headed that office although Google gives the impression she is in America. Inappropriately in this case her title is Vice President, Commercial Excellence.

One of the Aquafresh ads

          I could only get Kimberley’s email address, I was told, by going through her PA Marie Visser. While trying to contact the elusive Marie I was repeatedly put through to her extension only to get an automatic reply. Leaving a message to return my calls got me nowhere and nor did I hear from her after I had given my contact details to the switchboard operator, who assured me that Marie would get back to me.

          Is this the PERFORMANCE the company is so proud of?

          Eventually I did get Marie on the phone. She told me I must contact their Marketing Manager Tanja Geyer at tanja.geyer@gsk.co.za.  

GSK's Tanja Geyer

          A fat lot of good that was.

          In an email I asked her what independent scientific evidence her firm had to show that their Aquafresh toothpaste “strengthens the enamel” of teeth, as claimed in the advertisements that GSK had been running on DStv.

          My email was dated 1 November and on 8 November, when I had heard nothing from her I told her in an email that if I did not hear from her by 11 November I would assume that her firm had no scientific proof that Aquafresh strengthens enamel, and I would write my story accordingly.  

          I got read reports on each occasion, but nothing more.

          How can this PERMORMANCE of Geyer’s possibly be described as a transparent backing of a product made by a company that can be trusted for its integrity? (See also: Are toothpaste manufacturer's claims true ) 

          Regards,              
          Jon, a fearless Consumer Watchdog.  
P.S. GSK and Colgate-Palmolive have been involved in a long running legal battle since 2017 after Colgate accused GSK of false advertising for Aquafresh. Colgate argued that it could not substantiate its claim that this toothpaste offered 24 hour protection against glucaric acid, which was on the packaging and in adverts. South Africa's ASA initially found in favour of Colgate and ordered GSK to cease making this claim. GSK then took the matter to higher and higher courts where it has yet to be finalised             

P.PS. DStv is a direct broadcast African satellite service owned by MultiChoice that has about 12-million subscribers mostly in South Africa.                 

                                           

HAS DStv's CLAIMS THAT SHOWS ARE 'ALL NEW', 'BRAND NEW' AND 'NEW' NOW BEEN TOTALLY DISCREDITED

Dear DStv subscribers,

Jodi Arias the show off  killer

          It seems that DStv, the pay television arm of Multichoice that has tarnished its reputation with so many repeats is not at all bothered about damaging it still further by continuing to make out that programmes are new when they are not.

This is in spite the fact that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has told it to stop fabricating promotional material on more than one occasion.         

          It again shows how toothless the ASA is. It was established by the adverting industry as its internal policeman and had to be placed under business rescue two years ago. Now it doesn’t appear to be able to ensure that transgressions it has ruled against do not go on being repeated in similar forms by the same firm.  

          In the last few weeks DStv has been extensively promoting “Jodi Arias from Lust to Murder. All new Tuesday 10 April” on the Investigation Discovery (ID) channel. And when I complained that this was not new as I had seen it on DStv before I got this reply from Alet Bensch, MultiChoice’s Content Bouquet Manager.

Alet Bensch

          “I can confirm this is a brand new series, although the subject matter has been dealt with in other programmes previously, and a film called ‘Lust to Murder - Jodi Arias’ was aired on another channel last month. But no promos for the film were aired.”

          In my email reply to her I stated: “I don’t accept your explanation that this is a ‘brand new series.’ It can hardly be ‘all new’ (my underlining) when by your own admission it is not.

          “This is the kind of dishonesty that the Advertising Standards Authority told DStv to stop doing, isn’t it?

          “If I tell you a marginally different version of a story you have already heard does that make my story ‘all new’?

          “DStv’s ‘all new’ promotions have now been totally discredited because once one of them is found to be a lie how can your company expect anybody to believe anything else it claims?”

          She justified it still further by replying: “The series is indeed 100% new. None of theses episodes have aired, therefore they are ‘new’ if they have not aired before even though the subject matter was covered on other channels.”

          Significantly she was now referring to it as ‘new’ rather than ‘all new.’ And she ended her email with this most telling remark: “We are not promoting the topic as new - only the programming.”

          I then told her: “Sorry Alet that’s just splitting hairs to say ‘We are not promoting the topic as new - only the programming.’ How is the average person supposed to know that? Surely they are only interested in the topic not your programming. I bet if you took a survey among viewers and asked them what they thought the description ‘all new’ means they would say it means that it was something that was completely new that had not been shown on DStv before or some people might even go as far as believing that this meant it had never been aired anywhere else before.

“Whichever way you look at it this kind of thing has a touch of dishonesty about it. This is what con men do – they make something out to be far better than it actually is and I can’t understand why DStv has to resort to this sort of promotion when it virtually has a monopoly of paid TV in South Africa.”

I wonder how many people at DStv watch their own shows because late on the night of Thursday April 12 the promo for the Jodi series kept stating it would begin on Tuesday which was the10th of April, when it did actually start. This was shown repeatedly throughout the evening. Then shortly before midnight what I assume was a repeat of the first episode of the series was shown to add to the confusion of viewers.

Jodi murdered her boyfriend in 2008 by stabbing him 20 times while he was in the shower. Described as one of the most bizarre and salacious trials in American history it did not end until 2013 when she was convicted of first degree murder. She is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

DStv evidently believes that promoting just about everything as ‘all new,’ ‘brand new” or ‘new’ is the way to get people watching. Here’s a sample from the ID channel in addition to the Jodi Arias one – All new Bride Killa; All new Home Alone; New series Murder Chose me and The 1980s the Deadly Decade The new Series.

And then there is the Brand New Shifting Gears on the Discovery channel.

          I don’t know how true these statements are, but isn’t it shooting itself in the foot if this way of promoting shows is not believable?

          Just a couple of months ago the ASA slammed it in a ruling that reflected badly on MultiChoice.

          “One would not expect the label ‘brand new’ to be applied to a show that has been available in South Africa since 2013,” it stated.

          MultiChoice can hardly be “enriching lives” as it claims if its morality sinks to this level.

          The ASA found that the claim that “Mom 3 brand new season. Tuesday on Comedy Central” was misleading. This was the ASA’s wishy, washy way of saying it was not true. MultiChoice was ordered to withdraw the claim that this was new.

          Its pathetic defence was that even though Mom had previously been on DStv’s 101 channel it was new to Comedy Central (122).

          MultiChoice also got into hot water with the ASA for claiming there were 1800 movies a month available on DStv. It was told to provide the ASA with substantiation for its claim from an independent auditor.

DStv got so mixed up trying to justify that 1800 films
 a month story that it couldn't even count properly.
This is from the Business Report

          It’s not easy to find somebody else to vouch for your lies, so the ASA never received anything further from this entertainment company.

          The consumer’s complaint was upheld and MultiChoice was ordered to withdraw the claim.

          Regards

          Jon, a Consumer Watchdog, who doesn’t appreciate paying higher and higher DStv subscriptions if he can’t be sure that what he is being told about the shows, is true.

P.S. This may not be an ‘all new’ post of mine but I doubt that you will have read anything like it before - on my blog.

Note: Before I posted this I sent a copy to Calvo Mawelo DStv’s CEO, who I originally contacted. I invited him to comment or to make factual corrections if necessary. He merely suggested we have a meeting to discuss this, a suggestion I felt would not take the matter any further.

       

IS "UP TO" PERCENTAGE MARKETING OKAY?

Dear Consumers,

DISCOVERY'S  GORE

         It’s amazing how many top South African companies use the words “up to” when promoting their products or services. This is particularly prevalent among firms like Discovery; Momentum and various banks that have extensive rewards programmes.   

         Say an insurance company advertises that it will give you back “up to” 50% of the total of the premiums you have paid after two years. What would that mean to you?

         My interpretation would be that they could be giving you a lot less than 50%, but the figure sounds impressive and it makes the claim correct for any amount from just over 0% to 50%.

         A high percentage is a bait to get customers on the hook when the truth of the offer is so variable that it can be extremely suspect. That’s my belief.

         However in a confusing part of its Code of Conduct the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) says this type of advertising should not be used, but only if certain obscure conditions apply.

         Clause 4.5 states: “Claims, whether as to price or performance, which use formulas such as ‘up to 10 kilometres per liter’ or ‘prices from as low as R5’ are not acceptable where there is a likelihood of the consumer being misled as to the availability of the benefits offered. Such claims should not be used.”

          In Clause 4.5.1 it adds that this should only apply “where the price or other advantage claimed bears no relation to the prevailing level of prices or benefits, and in particular where it does not apply to the goods or services actually advertised or to more than an insignificant proportion of them.”

         My question is: “How is anybody who sees this kind of adverting supposed to know what this last clause means exactly?” 

         The ASA’s view is that it’s up to the customer or client to find out by looking at the firm’s Terms and Conditions – a curse of modern advertising. But I doubt that there is any company website that explains the ramifications of this at all, let alone clearly.

         About four years ago Capitec, one of South Africa’s youngest and most innovative banks tore up its Terms and Conditions (See “Brilliant Trail Blazer’s new Consumer Standard”). Unfortunately there is no sign of other businesses following suit.

         After my admittedly rather short investigation my guess is that the Discovery Group uses “up to” with at least one “as much as 14%” as a variation possibly more than anybody else.

         On its website for the five arms of its empire that extends to Medical Aid, Life and Short Term Insurance, Credit Cards and the Vitality Wellness Awards scheme these two words are mentioned “up to 300%” of the time, or is it “up to 60%” or “up to 30%”?

       Any of these could be right because they cover such a wide guess.

         Discovery also uses them in its Television advertising and possibly elsewhere.

FOR INSURING YOUR CAR WITH DISCOVERY

         Here are some samples of the many examples and at least one variation that you can find on the Group’s website. The * comments are mine.

Medical Aid: “Our plan contributions are as much as 14% lower than those of all South Africa’s medical schemes.” * Does this mean 0.1% lower, 10% lower or what?

“Executive Plan: Guaranteed full cover in hospital for specialists on payment arrangement and up to 300% of the Discover Health rate for other specialists.”

There are various other “up to” percentages for less costly plans.

Life Insurance: “Up to 60% of your premiums can be paid back to you depending on how well you manage your health.

“Receive up to 28% off your premiums up front.

“Up to 30% of you premiums back every year.”

Various “up to” percentage discounts are given if you have the other services provided by the group. * So it’s up to you to sign up for as many as possible to get a percentage of that juicy carrot that may or may not be much more than a pittance.

Short Term Insurance: “Up to 50% back on your BP fuel spend each month for driving well.”

Another version given is, “Get up to R800 of your fuel spend back each month.”

* This implies that you get money back wherever you buy your fuel, not just at a BP station.

Vitality: “Get up to 25% cash back on HealthFood items at Pick n Pay or Woolworths.

“Get up to 25% cash back on HealthGear at Sportsman’s Warehouse and Total Sports.” * Is this a lucky dip? Does it mean that today you could get say a 3% discount, tomorrow 8% and perhaps very occasionally when the stores want to get rid of excess stock 25%? Why is this so vague? Surely there should be a definite percentage discount if there is one.

“Save up to 80% on monthly gym fees at Virgin Active or Planet Fitness.”

I emailed the above to Adrian Gore, Discovery’s founder and Group Chief Executive and invited him to comment if he wished. I was told he had seen it although he was in London. The job of replying then tumbled down the ranks from Hylton Kallner, the Chief Marketing Officer who is also a director to Rene Vosloo, Head of Corporate Communication and Media Relations.

According to her I had got it all wrong if I thought Discovery had done anything amiss, so you readers will have to be the judge.

This is what she told me: “At Discovery we take our commitment to our clients and our abidance of the ASA Code of Conduct very seriously. Discovery doesn’t utilise the phase ‘up to’ unless our clients can and do obtain the values quoted under reasonable scenarios – for certain of the products quoted, clients receiving less than the benefits listed are in the minority (*by giving “up to” percentages no specific benefits are given), with the majority of clients in fact obtaining maximum ‘up to’ benefit. This is in line with our own principles of fairness and honesty as well as the FSB’s (Financial Services Board) Treat Customers Fairly legislative framework under which our products operate and are regulated.

“We are therefore confident and comfortable that all our material is developed within the ASA Code of Conduct.”

The FSB lists six requirements as part of its Treat Customers Fairly code. One of these is that: “Customers are provided with clear information and kept appropriately informed before, during and after front of sale.”

*But how clear is any “up to” a certain percentage at the “before” stage?

         One of the largest financial groups in South Africa MMI Holdings, more commonly known as Momentum is in a similar, if not quite as extensive an area of business as Discovery. It’s into Medical Aid, Life and Short term insurance; Fitness Promotion as well as Investments.

         The Proteas Cricket team is covered by Momentum Health.

         I don’t know which one, out of these two groups, first started this “up to” marketing, but Momentum’s is remarkably similar to Discovery’s.

         My guess it that there is an “up to” 100 chance that Discovery started it but then again the probability is “up to” 100% that Momentum got in first.

         On its website and in a Television advertising campaign during the World Cup cricket on DSTV Momentum tells us: “Get up to 60% off your Momentum life insurance; up to R5 400 paid into your Health Saver Account; join Virgin Active or Planet Fitness gyms for R99 and save up to 80% of your membership fees; up to 20% off your golf and cycling equipment at The Pro Shop or Cycle Lab and up to 50% off Mango flights.”

         Unlike Discovery Momentum does not state specifically that it abides by the ASA Code of Conduct but its Group Chief Executive Nicolaas Kruger had this to say in his introduction to the firm’s Code of Ethics.

         “Momentum is committed to do what is right, fair, reasonable and lawful.”

         There’s a heading entitled Speak Up, which could apply to me. It says: “We encourage people to speak up against any breach of our values and standards and have zero tolerance policy on retaliation as it is our belief that speaking up is always the right thing to do.”

        

KRUGER

When I asked Nicolaas Kruger Momentum’s Group CEO for his view he passed the job to Zureida Ebrahim the CEO, Client Engagement Solutions who replied on the letterhead of Momentum Multiply, which is its wellness and rewards scheme.

         She maintained that “client-centricity” was the heart of their business and they “demonstrated this in the ease and transparency in which our clients can take advantage of the various levels of benefits (hence the use of ‘Up to…’) available to them.”  *It’s hard to fathom how ‘up to’ percentages can be at all transparent. I would say they are the complete opposite to this. They hide the true picture.

         Zureida went on to say: “As the conditions of the ‘Up to …’ offer cannot be contained in the limited space of an advertisement, all our advertisements provide a website address where clients can view the terms and conditions of the offer.

         “Our sales process also provides a further opportunity for clients to gain more information on how the programme works as well as the benefits available to members.”

         She included a ruling made by the ASA in 2012 when somebody had evidently complained about the use of “up to” in ads. So I am not the only person who thinks this kind of advertising should not be allowed.

         Below is the ASA’s complicated ruling that “up to” ads are perfectly okay.

         Well I bet that if a survey was done there is "up to"a 90% chance that the majority of people would think this is certainly not alright.

         Based on my experience of the ASA’s decisions the chances are “up to” 100% that this decision was taken to appease all those companies that would have to go to considerable expense if they were ordered to change their “up to” ads to something more plausible.

         The ASA claims to be an impartial, independent body set up by the marketing and communications industry to ensure that its system for self-regulation works in the public interest.

         Only the industry knows how it can impartially enforce its Coded of Conduct when it is regulating itself. It’s like appointing your own judge at your trial.

         HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

         It’s dubious impartiality and bias towards big business was glaringly exposed in the way it dealt with various complaints that I made, the results of which you can read on my blog.

         Here are some of the worst examples: citizens aladdins cave of dubious ads ; ridiculous advertising standards authority and bungling advertising standards authority 

         Yours faithfully,

         Jon, your Consumer Watchdog, who does his best to get big business to come to heel.

P.S. I will be sending the link to this post to Leon Grobler, the ASA’s Manager Dispute Resolutions just in case he might one day say he knew nothing about what the advertising industry has really been “up to.”