I assume that I am not the only person to have received a fourteen-and-a-half page missive from the ASA this morning. It will probably be this evening before I get round to more than the quick glance I have given it so far. If anyone wants to comment then this is the place to do so.
The ASA provides for a further review procedure;
Can decisions be appealed?
In certain circumstances, advertising parties or complainants
can request a review of a ruling. Both sides have 21 days
from when they were told the decision to ask the Independent
Reviewer of ASA Adjudications to review the case. But they
must be able to establish that a substantial flaw of process
or adjudication is apparent, or show that additional relevant
evidence is available. If the Reviewer accepts a request for
a review he can ask the ASA Council to reconsider its ruling.
More information about the Independent Review procedure
can be found in the codes.
Note the time limit.
Seeing as it’s a secret (until the 17th, at least) I guess I shouldn’t say anything, beyond remarking that it appears to have taken them some 7000 words to excuse themselves from doing anything at all in nearly 5 months.
I have some more to say, but although the ASA appears utterly toothless where government ads are concerned, I’m sure they’d have no compunction in arresting me for breaking their embargo. That would be dangerous!
James:
The ASA are a watchdog funded by the advertising industry. They have no legal powers of any kind and are no more able to feel your collar than the WI.
And WHY is this a secret until the 17th March I wonder?
As far as I can tell, the thing about the 17th is just that they always announce the adjudications on a Wednesday, and Wednesday 17th March is when they’ll be announcing this one; they don’t like people jumping the gun, I suppose, all part of managing the message.
I haven’t yet been through the whole letter with a toothcomb, but have already found some interesting things, and will comment on these later.
“toothcomb”
Nit-picky, I know, but a nice example of how the wrong emphasis when spoken (‘a fine tooth-comb’) leads to the wrong interpretation of what was originally a ‘fine-tooth comb’, which (rather neatly) is the sort one uses for picking nits. :-)
I blame the BBC.
Tony
are no more able to feel your collar than the WI
But I’m sure they have friends who could! I somehow feel they’d regard breaking their embargo as more heinous than an advertisement that broke half of their own guidelines, disseminated unsubstantiated nonsense and terrorised children.
One particularly specious argument they use involves the use of the word ‘maybe’, which they regard as excusing the clause “maybe they could save the land for the children”, but this uses it in the opposite sense, i.e. the doubt expressed is that saving the land might not be possible!
They are a complete waste of space.
James, re your #4, I also blame the BBC, plus the three glasses of vin de Tesco that I consumed after reading the ASA letter. :-)
Looking forward to next week’s analyses…