LIES,LIES AND MORE LIES ARE WHAT TWO MASSIVE AFRIKAANS MEDIA GROUPS PRINT TO ENABLE SHYSTERS TO RIP OFF POOR BLACKS

Dear Readers,

Prof. George Claassen

          How can this possibly be allowed 24 years after the White apartheid government was replaced by a Black one? Are we back in those much hated apartheid days when South Africa’s Afrikaner rulers felt nothing for the welfare of the Blacks they were oppressing?

          Old habits die hard with Naspers and the Caxton Group it seems if they can get away with it, and do what big business so often does – make money with no regard for the ethics of what they are doing.

          Naspers, a multi national internet and media group offering services in 130 countries, does it through its Media24 newspapers.  And so does Caxton that has 88 titles in its newspaper division.

          They think nothing of continuing to print in various editions advertisements aimed at the poorest members of our society which they themselves agree are not believable.

          The ads, clearly aimed at Blacks, promote such obvious lies as penis enlargements and instant riches all with a 100% success guarantee. The purveyors of this deceit have equally unlikely titles such as Dr Bonga, Queen Apiah, Professor Habib, Chief Juba, King Abuja and a host of others.

          The Professor Habib ad was in Media24’s Daily Sun and this learned gentleman claimed to be the “strongest herbalist, healer from Egypt” who could bring back “lost loved ones”; make your “manhood strong and thick ”and “win lotto” etc.

          While it is unlikely that this no doubt fictitious title could be confused with Professor Adam Habib the Vice-chancellor and Principal of Wits University I think the papers are playing a dangerous game. They could just libel a real person.

          As far as I know it is illegal to call yourself a doctor when you are not one, but that doesn’t bother these newspapers one iota. Making money is all they are thinking about.

Citizen ads

          I began my efforts to stop these ads being printed with Caxton’s Johannesburg based daily The Citizen. Steven Motale the editor at the time conceded that these advertisements were “not believable.” He added that he felt his paper should still carry them with a “caution.”

          But when I said this would be an admission that his paper believed the ads were dubious he replied, “It’s a tough one. I’m going to take it up with the advertising department.”

          That was in 2013. Nothing changed however and the paper, which is publish Monday to Friday and has a daily circulation of 43 480, is still coining it out of these lies in the Herbalists section of the Classifieds.

          I have now turned my spotlight onto Media 24’s Daily Sun as well as its free weekly People’s Post which has 10 editions that are distributed door to door in Cape Town. The Sun that claims to be South Africa’s biggest daily has a circulation of 174 483 while People’s Post brags of a weekly print order of 318 495.

          So between them these two publications spread an awful lot of Herbalists lies week in and week out.

          What do you think happened when I asked Professor George Claassen Media24’s Ombudsman about these dubious ads? “I see that your group is not concerned about some of the ads it is happy to carry just to make money,” I told him in an email.

          He went even further than The Citizen’s editor by saying, “I agree with you, many of these ads are totally misleading and even fraudulent.”

          Claassen should know if anybody should. This former Professor of Journalism at Stellenbosch University has written a book on quackery which was an Afrikaans best seller.

Reggie Moalusi

 Reggie Moalusi Editor-in-Chief of the Daily and Sunday Sun told me, “I don’t believe in herbalists. But I don’t impose my views on our readers. There are people who believe in them.”

It’s a real cop out for Reggie to say he doesn’t impose his views on their readers when as an editor he must surely be making decisions almost daily that affect what the paper publishes on the editorial side.

Apart from heading these two papers he is also now the Secretary General of the South African National Editor’s Forum (SANEF), the organisation that gave me the complete brush off when I tried to raise the question of these dubious ads with it some years ago. This was in spite of the fact that it claims to be “committed to promoting and support ethical discourse and conduct in the South African media.”

However he was not a member of its Council then.

          The trouble is that so many newspapers conveniently regard their editorial and advertising sections as if they are completely different entities that have no affect on one another.

          When he was appointed Media24’s ombudsman Prof. Claassen was quoted as saying: “Journalists cannot hold other sections of society, such as politicians, public figures and the private sector to account if they do not apply the same standards of responsibility and accountability to their own profession.”

          Well what’s the point in expecting journalists to do this in the editorial side of newspapers when the ones I have mentioned give a shop window to people who are lying their heads off in these Herbalists advertisements?           

          I have taken examples from the two groups that illustrate the kind of morality that is going on. These make me believe that this kind of advertising could be even more widespread in these media empires and perhaps in other groups, than just in the publications I have mentioned. 

          Prof Claassen put the blame on the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) code for being “very vague on these types of advertising.” He then referred to the old White Man’s law of caveat emptor (buyer beware) which he said “also comes into play in which the user/buyer has a certain responsibility to also make informed judgements on whether to buy a produce or use a service.”

Esmare` Weideman

          Esmare` Weideman Media24’s Chief Executive Officer relied on the same excuses when I posed this question to her: “Why does your group continue to feel the need to make money out of lies that are used to rip off the poorest sections of our community.”

          “George is correct that the ASA rules are vague, and that the user/buyer has to exercise judgment. As you know, we have a disclaimer on all our ‘smalls’ advertising pages.”

          Both she and George ignore the fact that the ASA does not publish newspapers and nor does it have any direct say as to what goes into them. So just because the ASA is not doing its job by taking action to stop these advertising lies, does that mean papers are perfectly justified in continuing to make money out of them.

          Early in 2014 the ASA had an Ad-Alert list of 19 advertisers on its website and nearly half of these were traditional healers with names like Dr Bumba, Dr Rehema and Prof. Wakho. This list is sent to all its members to ensure that those with an adverse ruling, who have not responded, can not advertise again.

          At about the same time the ASA claimed  to have “ruled against such advertisements on numerous occasions, 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.”

          The ASA, which is controlled and paid for by the advertising industry, has conveniently been structured so that it does not have the powered to order papers as whole to stop taking these suspect ads. It can only deal with complaints about the ads themselves involving its own members and it doesn’t initiate anything without a complaint.

The one time consumer journalist on that paper

          What these two media groups are doing is an indictment of the ASA’s failure to do what it claims is the main reason why it was established – “to ensure its system of self - regulation works in the public interest.”

See: ridiculous advertising ASA

          As for the disclaimer Esmare` talked about that is a published verification that her group is fully aware that what it is doing is not remotely kosher. By just publishing these ads I believe the papers are giving the services offered a certain stamp of approval in the eyes of the less educated on the basis that they would not expect their paper to lie to them.

          Here’s the one in the Daily Sun with my comments in brackets. It is headed Important Notice to Readers and goes on to tell them in the smallest of print that the paper “has not verified whether any of the services or products advertised are safe to use or will have the desired effect or outcome (Why is the paper promoting them if it is so doubtful about how genuine they are?). Readers will note that some of the promised results in the advertisements are extraordinary and may be impossible to achieve (That’s just glossing over what a lot of people would recognise as lies).  Beware some of the procedures advertised may be dangerous if not executed by a qualified medical practitioner (These ads promote some people as qualified doctors when they are obvious not). Readers are warned that they should carefully consider the advertiser’s credentials (How are the unsophisticated people who are evidently taken in by the mumbo jumbo of these herbalists supposed to do this?).”

          It ends by saying “Daily Sun does not accept any liability whatsoever in respect of any of the services and goods advertised (How can this possibly be right when the paper is promoting what it admits are lies and without its advertisements these shysters would have great difficulty in reaching the people they are out to con. In this case relying on the old buyer beware law is like driving the wrong way on a motorway with a sign on the back of your vehicle that says ‘My lawyer assures me that I cannot be blamed if anyone crashes into me because they have a duty to watch where they are going’).”

          What really should have happened long ago is that the journalists in these media groups should have exposed all these bogus doctors, professors and the like in an effort to stop them continuing to rip off the unsuspecting poor. Instead their papers have shown deplorably double standards by not dealing appropriately with that lying hand that feeds them, while still continuing to reveal the shortcomings of others in our society.

Regards,

Jon, a Consumer Watchdog of long standing and Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman, who does his best to tell as few lies as possible. And if by chance he does tells one he is happy to correct it and not blame it on a reader’s poor eyesight, the Blog Council or some other pathetic reason.
See: citizen's lies

P.S.  I have been campaigning for some time on my blog to get The Citizen to stop taking these ads. But whatever I did I could not get it to cease publishing them. Although the ASA has deplored these ads it is clear that it is not serious about getting papers to stop taking these money spinners. When I tried to lodge complaints about the ads with the ASA I was given a complete run around. I was referred to the Print & Digital Media SA (now defunct) in 2014. Caxton was one of the members. They also claimed they did not have the power to stop this kind of advertising and I was referred back to the ASA. I then tried Terry Moolman, Caxton’s CEO and co-founder. He didn’t reply but his PA emailed me to say my inquiry had been passed to Paul Jenkins, Caxton’s Group Chairman and Chairman of the Social and Ethics Committee. I got no reply from him either and the lies continue to be printed in the Herbalist section of The Citizen. It also blocked me on Twitter as some kind of reprisal for exposing its dubious advertising practice on my blog. I was equally unsuccessful when I tried to get SANEF to take a stand against these ads. It claims to be “founded on high ideals in an industry that around the world is often maligned for its lack of integrity,” yet Mathata Tsedu, its director at the time didn’t bother to reply to my email even though I phoned him to make sure he got it. He is a former editor of City Press, which is a Sunday paper in the Media24 stable. Editors clearly won’t take a stand against newspapers over this for fear of putting their jobs on the line in a relatively small media environment.
But I have no job to lose.

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.

       

WHY THE SUNDAY TIMES WILL NEVER EXPOSE THIS ON-GONG SCANDAL

Dear Readers,

Caxton's Terry Moolman

          The latest edition of the Johannesburg based Sunday Times carries a revealing special report supplement to celebrate its 110^th anniversary.

          In it the current Editor Bongani Siqoko tells us: “We have brought down to earth the most powerful for exploiting the poor and the downtrodden of our country.”

          That might have been in the past but is that what’s happening now?

Why has his paper ignored a deplorable scandal that without a doubt is “exploiting the poor and downtrodden of our country” and has been bringing big business handsome profits for years?

The Sunday Times even has it own Consumer Watchdog Megan Power who writes a column each week.

To make matters worse it’s been there for all to see week in and week out effectively bringing the morality of newspapers in general into disrepute.

Under the heading of Herbalists the daily newspaper The Citizen is coining it with advertisements from people fraudulently calling themselves doctors, professors and all kinds of other experts. They promise the poor and uneducated miracle cures, instant wealth and a host of other dubious ways to improve their lives.

All for a price of course.

Even the Editor Steven Motale agreed with me TWO YEARS AGO (citizen's dubious ads) that these advertisements were not believable, but his paper has never stopped churning out these lies.

          Money takes preference over morality at this publication that has a daily circulation of 51 000. Surely by taking ads from fraudsters the paper is just as culpable because it is aiding and abetting them to rip off the unsuspecting, especially when the paper knows that what it is printing is NOT TRUE.

No wonder the South African Editor’s Forum (SANEF), which claims to be “committed to encouraging ethically driven media”, says on its website that the newspaper industry around the world “is often maligned for its lack of integrity.”

Well with papers like The Citizen, that doesn’t even believe in the veracity of everything it prints, you can understand why this industry has that unenviable reputation.

Needless to say as far as I know not a single member of SANEF has done anything to try and stop this immoral practice at The Citizen. In fact when I tried to get comment from this upholder of free speech I got a rude brush off (questionable ethics).

The Sunday Time’s anniversary supplement might have inadvertently provided the answer as to why neither the Sunday Times, nor SANEF or any other newspaper in South Africa has yet had the guts to take The Citizen to task for so badly bringing down standards in the industry.

A story headed CAXTON HAS A LONG RELATIONSHIP WITH TIMES MEDIA explained it all.

            Caxton Printers in Johannesburg is the largest single-site print factory in the country, it revealed. “In total, 103 different products, including some 10 daily newspapers and six weekend newspapers are printed at the site,” Jaco Koekmoer, 

CEO of Caxton Cold Set was quoted as saying.

          “These include the Caxton owned The Citizen, as well as many of its free community newspapers, in addition to the daily and weekend newspapers the company prints on behalf of other publishers, such as the Times Media group, owners of the Sunday Times.”

          He said that while they had previously printed supplements for the Sunday Times they had been printing the main body of the paper for the last three and half years.

          So that’s why the Sunday Times and every other paper in South Africa together with all their editors find The Citizen’s lucrative blight on the media is far too hot to do anything about.

          It is even being ignored by the South African Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a media finance body, that once told a judge that “Publishing misleading  advertising is intrinsically harmful to consumers” and that it was “only the ASA that monitors the advertising industry as a whole and responds to complaints speedily and effectively.”

          So “effectively” that it also lies because when I submitted complaints to it about these dubious ads in The Citizen it refused to consider them (ridiculous asa).

          I have no doubt that if a different kind of business was being run contrary to the public interest the Sunday Times would not hesitate to set its investigation reporters onto it in keeping with its motto: The paper for the people.

Siqoko claimed in that anniversary report that his paper “will remain non-aligned.” But no doubt that does not apply in the case of The Citizen because they are all in bed together.

And those who sleep together stick together.

Regards

Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman who exposes media LIES when nobody else will.  

P.S. In the past I tried to get comment from secretive media baron Terry Moolman, Caxton’s majority shareholder, but I got nowhere. (caxton bosses duck dubious advertisng issue)                                                                                         

GOOD RIDDANCE IF SA'S ADVERTISING WATCHDOG GOES

Dear Consumers,

Thembi  Msibi the ASA's
CEO

          I was interested to see that the South Africa Advertising Authority (ASA) has been telling a judge in the High Court things which in my experience are not true.

          In her Consumer Column in the Sunday Times Megan Power reported on the case involving the ASA’s efforts to discipline the Medical Nutritional Institute (Institute). This firm is in the business of making complimentary medicines – those that are made from plants, minerals etc.

          Having decided that the Institute’s advertised claims for its AntaGolin product, which was said to combat insulin resistance and help with weight reduction, were unsubstantiated the ASA wanted to issue an ad alert.

          This would have meant that all ASA members, the majority being media companies, would have refused to accept the company’s AntaGolin ads unless certain conditions were met.

          The firm successfully applied to the Johannesburg High Court to prevent the ASA from doing this and the order will remain in force until a R17-million action for damages brought against the ASA by the company has been concluded.

          It is also suing Doctor Harris Steinman for R200 000 for defamation. He was one of two people who complained about the ads that the firm says are not at all misleading.

          The ASA is appealing this judgement in which it was also ordered to remove all references on it website critical of the Institutes ads.

          At the beginning of her column Power stated that the ASA “protects consumers against misleading and unsubstantiated advertising.” Well I have first hand experience that shows that although it professes to be impartial it in not when its own media members are involved. And I have conclusive evidence of a deplorable case where the ASA has failed to protect the public in favour of one of its members.

          According to Power the ASA told the judge the following: It claimed its code was a contract between members of the advertising industry and members would not publish adverts that did not comply with it. It did not compel anyone to comply with its rules, but if advertisers wanted to publish adverts in media owned by its members they were then required to do so.

          “Publishing misleading advertising is intrinsically harmful to consumers, whether or not products cause actual physical harm,” the ASA maintained. “It is only the ASA that monitors the advertising industry as a whole and responds to complaints speedily and effectively.

          “The ASA’s complaint resolution turnaround is an impressive 30 days and its rulings are posted to its website.”

          I have made several complaints to the ASA and I would have made more if they had accepted them. Not one of them has been upheld. It surely can’t be just a coincidence that my experiences with the ASA make absolute nonsense of the claims mentioned above that were made before the judge. It could of course be that the “impartial” ASA doesn’t give the same consideration to complaints from people like me who have openly criticised its shortcomings on my blog as opposed to those who don’t.

          Here are examples:    

·      The most glaring ones that show how untrue these claims are appear in the Herbalist advertisements in the The Citizen daily newspaper. Many of the ads for such things as penus enlargements and instant wealth are so clearly a pack of lies that even the editor agreed with me that they are not believable. But when I complained about these to the ASA it refused to take my complaints and generally gave me the run around with the result that pages of these lies have continued to appear in that paper on a daily basis. (citizens dubious ads.html) And what makes this even more deplorable is that The Citizen is one of the ASA’s members through Caxton, the group that owns it.        

·      Another ASA member is the Johannesburg based Sunday Times. But when I complained about some of its get-rich-quick investment ads that often resulted in poor people being defrauded of their life savings the complaints were accepted and then conveniently lost. The result: Nearly a year and half later I got an apology and was told that because of the delay they could not finish what they had started(bungling asa.html). To show you what a humpty dumpty organisation the ASA is this is what a member of its staff wrote to me during this long running affair. “We note that your complaint refers to a Sunday Times advertisement. Please note that the ASA deals with and investigates specific advertisements.”

    

Here are some other reasons why what the Judge was told was not true:

·      The ASA maintained it is the only organisation that   “monitors the advertising industry as a whole.” The word monitor as far as I could establish means to “keep something under continuous scrutiny.”  Well from what I was told the ASA does no such thing. It only reacts to complaints. Also it conveniently doesn’t have the power to tell any of its media members to stop accepting any ads until somebody has complained about the ads themselves and the ASA has ruled that they are not acceptable. So a paper like The Citizen can go on coining money by promoting charlatans in its Herbalists ads which are there for anybody, as well as the people who run the ASA, to see. Nothing will be done unless somebody complains and the complaint is upheld.  But then the ruling would only apply to the one ad complained about and there are pages of them all making similar extremely dubious claims. THAT’S THE ASA’S VERSION OF “MONOTORING THE INDUSTRY.”

      

·      Although it told the Judge that “publishing misleading advertising is intrinsically harmfully to consumers” it is doing such a great job of protecting consumers that The Citizen’s continues to carry a stack of “misleading advertising,” which it has been doing for years. Sorry that description is far too complimentary. Many of the ads contain complete and utter lies.                  

·      The ASA’s claim that its “complaint resolution turnaround is an impressive 30 days” makes out that this is how long it takes to get a ruling. This might happen in some cases but I can’t see how it can possibly be anything like the norm. I say this is because once a complaint has been received the ASA then has to get the advertiser’s side of the story before it can judge the issue. That can take weeks if not months. And as I found out when crooks place what are very obviously dicey ads the naïve ASA spends ages trying to get them to reply and when this doesn’t happen the ASA decides it can’t make a ruling. But it is so inconsistent that in at least one case that I know of it came to a decision without getting the advertiser’s version.

          In the court case the Institute argued that as it was not a member of the ASA it did not believe that it has any jurisdiction over it.  It contended that the Medicines & Related Substances Control Act as well as the Consumer Protection Act provided sufficient protection for consumers regarding its products.

          The ASA countered that it had been given statutory powers by the Electronic Communications Act to decide if ads carried on TV - this was where the controversial AntaGolin ads had mainly appeared - by its members complied with its code. This applied whether or not the advertiser was a member of the ASA or not.

          One of the ASA’s problems is that it tries at times, like in this case, to discipline firms that are not members of its organisation and that’s where things become very murky.          
                          

          On one occasion it found in favour of university professor Rudi de Lange who complained that a so called Dr Semba was exploiting consumers by saying on his website that his “psychic powers” could cure epilepsy, high blood pressure and other ailments. Semba’s unbelievable claims were similar to the ones being made in The Citizen ads for which the ASA refused to allow me to lodge any complaints.

          Having spent some time trying to get Semba’s side of the story, the ASA gave up when he did not reply and accepted what the Professor had to say.

          The ASA then showed how ridiculous it is when it tried to get Semba to stop what he was doing when it has no control over websites. So Semba continued to proclaim to the world the benefits of his psychic powers as if nothing had happened. 

          In her report headlined “Watchdog in chains as advertiser fights back” Power’s view was that if this legal battle resulted in the ASA being barred from making rulings about misleading and unsubstantiated advertising by non-members it could leave consumers “vulnerable to exploitation.”

          But it’s doing that already because it is protecting them in some cases but not in others as my experiences shows particularly as far as The Citizen is concerned. There may of course be other similar cases that I don’t know about

What’s more when it comes to making misleading statements the ASA is in a league of its own. Apart from what I have already mentioned it boldly stated on its website that it “regulates all advertising which should be legal, decent, honest and truthful and no advertisement should bring advertising into disrepute or reduce confidence in it.”

In my case this boast proved to be “misleading and unsubstantiated.” So the sooner this apology for an advertising police force disappears the better and is replaced by a much more effective organisation. In its present form its own promotional advertising screams out how bad self-regulation is as a means of controlling the unacceptable behaviour that affects consumers in any industry.

“The budget intended for the protection of consumers is being blown on defending legal attacks,” Power wrote. “The Medical Nutritional Institute’s lawyers represent several other companies including Herbex, Solal, Groupon and Ultimate Sports Nutrition which have challenged the ASA.”

So it looks as though the ASA could have to defend actions for millions more.

HERE’S HOPING IT GETS SUED INTO OBLIVION BECAUSE THAT’S EXACTLY WHERE IT SHOULD TO BE.  

CONSUMERS YOU DESERVE BETTER, A LOT BETTER.

Regards,

Jon, a Consumer Watchdog who unlike the ASA is not employed by any industry and as such can claim to be genuinely independent.

*Note: The ASA was established by its media members as a self-policing mechanism for advertising. It is run on similar lines to that other great media pillar of justice the South African Press Council. Both of them claim to be impartial while showing a distinct bias towards their media masters.

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.”