Version 1
ASA Adjudications
Spyhole Press Ltd t/a ConVerse
175 Hill Lane
Manchester
M9 6RL
Number of complaints: 1
Date: 29 April 2009
Media: Press general
Sector: Publishing
Ad
A front-page flash on ConVerse - a newspaper distributed to prisons - stated "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS."
Issue
A reader challenged whether the claim "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS" was misleading and could be substantiated.
The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;18.1;18.3
Response
ConVerse said the "highest circulation" claim was based on the number of copies delivered to prisons. ConVerse said the Oxford English Dictionary defined "circulation" as "the number of copies of each issue of a newspaper, magazine, etc. distributed." They said they believed their "highest circulation" claim was therefore likely to be understood as referring to the number of copies distributed only. They supplied figures, which they described as circulation figures, published respectively in ConVerse and their competitor publication. They believed the figures showed that, over the preceding 15 months, ConVerse had circulated 52,000 copies more than the competitor publication. They said that amounted to an average of 3,500 more copies per month, which they believed justified the "highest circulation" claim. They said that, in addition to England and Wales, their competitor's publication was also circulated to prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and so their competitor's circulation figures for England and Wales were in fact smaller than their total circulation figure. ConVerse said they conducted surveys with prisons every six months to check that the newspaper was being received and distributed satisfactorily and whether too many or too few were being delivered. They said that, for a prison population of 83,000 prisoners in England and Wales spread across 139 prisons, their latest monthly figures (dated February 2009) were that they had printed 48,000.
They said the "national" part of their claim referred to England and Wales. They said the Probation Service referred to itself as the National Probation Service and its remit covered England and Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered it was reasonable for ConVerse to use the term "national" within England and Wales to refer to distribution within England and Wales. We noted that the figures ConVerse had supplied and described as circulation figures would have been described as distribution figures if they had been subject to normal Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) criteria. We noted that the print invoices ConVerse had supplied showed their print run figures exceeded the distribution figures that the competitor publication claimed for itself. We noted the dictionary definition of "circulation" which ConVerse had supplied, together with the exceptional circumstances of a free newspaper that was distributed to prisons only. We nevertheless considered readers, and in particular advertising buyers who were potential advertisers with ConVerse, would be familiar with ABC's use of the terms "distribution" and "circulation" and that they were therefore likely to understand ConVerse's "highest circulation" claim to mean that they had the highest sales figures. We considered that, because ConVerse had not shown that they had the highest sales figures of any national newspaper distributed to prisons, the claim was likely to mislead. We told ConVerse to remove the claim and, in future, to avoid using the word "circulation" to describe the number of copies of ConVerse distributed.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
Version 2
CONVERSE: HIGHEST NATIONAL CIRCULATION NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS
Mark Leech
View profile
More options Mar 3, 2:46 pm
From: Mark Leech
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Mar 3 2009 2:46 pm
Subject: CONVERSE: HIGHEST NATIONAL CIRCULATION NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In light of the comment from John Hirst that Converse does not have
the evidence to substantiate its claim to be the highest circulation
national newspaper for prisoners, I thought I'd comment on the
background to this and the current position.
John Hirst's sidekick, Ben Gunn a lifer in Shepton Mallet and arch
opponent to Converse, complained to the Advertising Standards
Authority that Converse was making untrue claims in saying it was the
highest circulation national newspaper for prisoners.
Quite rightly the ASA investigated the claim we made and the
Investigation Report was out last Friday - it has to be ratified by
the ASA Council, but here is the verbatim report and their
recommendation that the complaint be dismissed.
_______
The Advertising Standards Authority has published the following
Adjudication on ConVerse.
A front page flash on ConVerse - a newspaper distributed to prisons -
stated "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS."
Issue: A reader in Shepton Mallet challenged whether the claim was
misleading and could be substantiated.
Response: ConVerse said the "highest circulation" claim was based on
the number of copies delivered to prisons. ConVerse said the Oxford
English Dictionary defined "circulation" as "the number of copies of
each issue of a newspaper, magazine, etc distributed." They said they
believed their "highest circulation" claim was therefore likely to be
understood as referring to the number of copies distributed only.
They supplied figures, which they described as circulation figures,
published respectively in ConVerse and their competitor publication.
They believed the figures showed that, over the preceding 15 months,
ConVerse had circulated 52,000 copies more than the competitor
publication. They said that amounted to an average of 3,500 more
copies per month, which they believed justified the "highest
circulation" claim. They said that, in addition to England and Wales,
their competitor's publication was also circulated to prisons in
Scotland and Northern Ireland, and so their competitor's circulation
figures for England and Wales were in fact smaller than their total
circulation figure. ConVerse said they conducted surveys with prisons
every six months to check that the newspaper was being received and
distributed satisfactorily and whether too many or too few were being
delivered. They said that, for a prison population of 83,000
prisoners in England and Wales spread across 139 prisons, their latest
monthly figures (dated February 2009) were that they had printed
48,000. They said the "national" part of their claim referred to
England and Wales. They said the Probation Service referred to itself
as the National Probation Service and its remit covered England and
Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Assessment: Not upheld
The ASA considered it was reasonable for ConVerse to use the term
"national" within England and Wales to refer to distribution within
England and Wales. We noted that the figures ConVerse had supplied
and described as circulation figures were in fact distribution
figures. We noted that ConVerse had supplied print invoices that
showed their print run figures and that their print run figures
exceeded the distribution figures that the competitor publication
claimed for itself. We considered that the term "circulation" was
open to interpretation to some extent and that, in some situations, it
could be understood to refer to the number of copies of a publication
that were sold. In the context of a newspaper that was distributed
free of charge in prisons, however, and in the light of the print run
figures ConVerse had supplied, which exceeded the numbers claimed by
their competitor, we concluded that ConVerse had substantiated that
they printed and distributed more copies of their newspaper than their
competitor claimed and that the claim that they were the highest
circulation national newspaper for prisoners was therefore unlikely to
mislead readers.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons) but did not find it
in breach.
Action: No further action necessary.
UPDATE: There will be further action because Jailhouselawyer has contacted the ASA press office for a comment on Mark Leech's unlawful conduct of changing their decision and fraudulently passing it off as coming from the ASA.
Furthermore, in relation to Google Groups, in my view, Mark Leech has violated the Terms of Service and I will be making Google aware of this and ask that Google removes the offending material.
"6. Appropriate Conduct
You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and communications while using the Service and for any consequences thereof. You agree to use the Service only to send and receive messages and material that are legal, proper and related to the particular Group. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
* defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others;
* post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;
* post any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary right of any party (the "Rights"), unless you are the owner of the Rights or have the permission of the owner to Post such Content;
* post messages that promote pyramid schemes, chain letters or disruptive commercial messages or advertisements, or anything else prohibited by the Group owner.
* download any file Posted by another user of a Group that you know, or reasonably should know, that cannot be legally distributed in such manner;
* impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is Posted;
* restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Service;
* use the Service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose;
* remove any copyright, trademark or other proprietary rights notices contained in or on the Service;
* interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
* use any robot, spider, site search/retrieval application, or other device to retrieve or index any portion of the Service or collect information about users for any unauthorized purpose;
* submit Content that falsely expresses or implies that such Content is sponsored or endorsed by Google;
* create user accounts by automated means or under false or fraudulent pretenses;
* promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities or promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual; or
* transmit any viruses, worms, defects, Trojan horses, or any items of a destructive nature.
International users agree to comply with their own local rules regarding online conduct and acceptable content, including laws regulating the export of data to the United States or your country of residence.
While Google prohibits such conduct and Content in connection with the Service, you understand and agree that you nonetheless may be exposed to such conduct and/or Content and that you use the Service at your own risk".
No comments:
Post a Comment