I've gone to the ASA about Shop Extra already

[Deleted member 21838]

Has the below ever happened?

“Broadcasters are required by a condition of their broadcast licences to enforce ASA rulings.  If they persistently run ads that fall foul of the Broadcast Advertising Code, broadcasters risk being referred by the ASA to Ofcom, which can impose fines and even withdraw their licence to broadcast.“

 

[TheManWithNoName]

I'm not sure whether the same applies to the ASA - but certainly in banking, if you make a referral to the Financial Ombudsman, it costs the company (bank) £1000 - regardless of whether the final outcome is in favour of the customer or the bank.

IF (I don't know), the same applies to the ASA, and the channels have to pay X amount each time a complaint is lodged with the ASA, regardless of the outcome, it could be argued that it is in the ASA's interest not to come down hard on these channels because if the channels repeatedly keep crossing the line, and complaints get lodged with the ASA, then they make money from it.

I have no idea whether or not that is the case - I'm just assuming that a similar method applies because, at the end of the day, these organisations have to make money too in order to survive and pay their staff - and the Conservative government is not exactly known for supporting public services very well.

 

[saintslad]

The ASA do not charge per complaint.
If you don't know best not post such suggestions.

 

[saintslad]

And I dont believe the Financial Ombudsman charges for superficial claims.

 

[saintslad]

Probable best to avoid liable comments.
Could harm you in the future.

 

[saintslad]

Best say something nice! Honest, or walk away.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Best say something nice! Honest, or walk away.

Did you actually read what I said?

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Probable best to avoid liable comments.
Could harm you in the future.

Try reading properly. Oh, and the word you're looking for is "libel" not 'liable".

Even though nothing libellous was said anyway.......

 

[Dr Quincy MkII]

The complaints mechanism is completely flawed. Other than try to go to trading standards, the ASA is the only other obvious route. I‘ve probably complianed about output from Shopping Channels maybe ten times in ten or fifteen years. Each time there has either been nothing back other than initial acknowledgement, or the ‘guidance’ routine response. I think this particular issue, however small in terms of actual financial loss, perfectly illustrates the chosen toothlessness of the ASA, and how these and similar issues will continue unchecked essentially by shopping channels in general. The only penalty that could wake them up would be broadcasting bans and/or financial penalties. Losing an hour’s broadcasting, say, with a compulsory ASA message displayed giving the reason, would surely have the desired effect. Obviously, though, that is never going to happen, and issues like the one raised here will continue to happen with impunity.

It's why programmes like Watchdog on the BBC were useful, in that, it was a wider voice to name and shame companies because the mechanisms in place aren't enough

 

[Muttley]

It's why programmes like Watchdog on the BBC were useful, in that, it was a wider voice to name and shame companies because the mechanisms in place aren't enough

I vaguely remember Watchdog featuring something from Bid TV (I think), about a sewing machine. Don't remember if it was the sewing machine company being criticised or Bid TV itself. Around 10 years ago I think.

I used to like Watchdog, Matt Allwright was brilliant! He'd constantly pursue dodgy people in his motorbike, he didn't care about repercussions! We need proper consumer remedies rather than the useless ASA who tell shopping channels not to do that again (which they then ignore).

 

[Deleted member 21838]

Yes, and the BBC is so concerned about consumer rights that they've reduced the Watchdog programme to a 10-minute spot within another programme.

 

[Jazzydrury]

Yes, and the BBC is so concerned about consumer rights that they've reduced the Watchdog programme to a 10-minute spot within another programme.

10 minutes if you are lucky

 

[Muttley]

Yes, and the BBC is so concerned about consumer rights that they've reduced the Watchdog programme to a 10-minute spot within another programme.

Also, the actual Watchdog programme was primetime, maybe 8pm. The 10 minutes within another programme was probably a daytime programme so won't have the same audience range. I was really surprised when they stopped it.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Probable best to avoid liable comments.
Could harm you in the future.

Still waiting for you to point out which bit was "liable" - or perhaps as you don't know the difference between liable and libel, its safe to say you didn't really know what you were talking about to begin with?

 

[Deleted member 21838]

They told me during one of their previous visits that they were an expert on the subject. Tends to raise a credibility question mark on libellous expertise, though, when you spell libel wrong.

 

[saintslad]

Still waiting for you to point out which bit was "liable" - or perhaps as you don't know the difference between liable and libel, its safe to say you didn't really know what you were talking about to begin with?

Apologies misunderstood your post and sorry.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Apologies misunderstood your post and sorry.

No worries. Fair enough!

 

[saintslad]

Thank you.