On Wednesday, this appeared:
Tweeters were quick to point out this is utterly false - a six month extension was granted.
So why is the Royal Mail's social media account propagating false information (it was still up Thursday morning)? And why is the Advertising Standards Authority not involved?
An advert for Costa Coffee has been banned...Oh? Was it potentially dangerous? Or inaccurate?
...for urging customers to buy a bacon roll rather than avocados.*blinks*
Two listeners complained that the ad, which aired in June, discouraged people from opting for fresh fruit.Two? Two?!
...in its ruling, the Advertising Standards Authority said consumers would interpret the ad as a comparison between the experience of eating an avocado and a bacon roll or egg muffin.
"We considered that, although the ad was light-hearted, it nevertheless suggested avocados were a poor breakfast choice, and that a bacon roll or egg muffin would be a better alternative, and in doing so discouraged the selection of avocados," the ASA said.Good grief! Now, either the staff misread their acronym and thought they worked for the Avocado Satisfaction Authority, or this is some bonkers piece of EU legislation that...
All radio and television adverts must comply with the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP) which states that comparisons between foods must not discourage fruit and vegetables. The advert now must not be broadcast again, and Costa has been told to make sure its future ads do not "condone or encourage poor nutritional habits"./facepalm
Anti-begging posters put up by Nottingham City Council have been banned after complaints they implied that all homeless people were engaged in criminal and antisocial behaviour.Yeah, it's the 99% that give the others a bad name....
Over the summer the council ran a series of five posters to persuade the public to stop giving money to beggars.
One poster featured an image of a homeless man in sleeping bag begging with the text “Begging: watch your money go to a fraud. Beggars aren’t what they seem.”
A second featured a close-up of a person smoking a roll-up cigarette with the text “Begging: watch your money go up in smoke. Begging funds the misuse of drugs”.
And a third featured an image of a discarded lager can and the line “Begging: watch your money go down the drain. Begging funds the misuse of alcohol.”Who could possibly object to th...
The Advertising Standards Authority received seven complaints that the ads were offensive because they portrayed homeless people in a derogatory manner and implied they are engaged in criminal and antisocial behaviour.The truth is no longer a defence. Not when there's do-gooders to be appeased!
The ASA said that four of the five ads portrayed all beggars as “disingenuous and undeserving individuals”.
“We further considered the ads reinforced negative stereotypes of a group of individuals, most of whom were likely to be considered as vulnerable [and] who faced a multitude of issues and required specialist support,” said the ASA.
“On that basis we concluded [four of the ads] were likely to cause serious or widespread offence.”
The ASA therefore banned the ads.Isn't it about time the silent majority, who don't want to have to be hassled for money when they go shopping, stood up and said 'You're out of order'..?
Plans by Nando's for a giant chicken logo above an historic north London pub have sparked an angry backlash from residents.*raises eyes heavenwards*
Caroline Hill from the Kentish Town Road Action group told the Standard: “It’s going to be an enormous chicken because it’s Nando’s.
“It’s absolutely horrendous and it’s 11.5ft high. It’s completely out of keeping with the historic aspect of the building and everybody opposes it.
“It’s absolutely ghastly.”There's a 'Kentish Town Action Group'..? Is it twinned with the 'Tooting Popular Front'?
“I think they’re just doing it to make themselves stand out.”Yes, sweetie. That's the point of advertising.
An ad for the film Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes that showed an ape shooting a man dead with an automatic weapon has been cleared following 119 complaints.One hundred and nineteen people actually phoned, wrote and (presumably) emailed. One hundred and nineteen!
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the majority of complainants believed the ad was inappropriate for children to see …Right, OK, fair enough. Wait, when was it shown, again?
… while others believed the theme and content was unsuitable for juxtaposition with a mainstream sporting event.Oh, I dunno. A bunch of out-of-control apes running amok seems quite fitting, somehow. But…back to the broadcast time:
The ASA said the ad was unsuitable for young children and the 9pm restriction reflected this. It said: "While it was unfortunate that any distress was caused to younger viewers who did see the ad, we considered that the scheduling restriction in place, together with the time of broadcast, 9.50 pm, meant that it had been directed away from younger viewers."Quite! So, if you let your precious kiddiewinks stay up past the threshold, and they were traumatised, you’ve only yourself to blame. You’re the adult.
If you needed further proof that education has become little more than a commodity, then the news that Ucas is selling access to millions of students to advertisers might just be it.Just advertisers? Good lord, from the pearl-clutching going on, you’d think she’d discovered they were planning to sell students’ personal details to white slavers...
Yes, you can opt out of receiving the digital marketing emails, but only by also agreeing to miss out on the education and careers newsletters, too.And how many students even read these in the first place? Will they miss them?
Even as a teenager I knew instinctively it was wrong. It was about 10 years ago that the first advertising posters cropped up at my school, in the corridors and canteen, advertising films and junk foods. Prior to that we had been using Pepsi-branded exercise books, but the posters were a step too far.Couldn’t you have just hurried past, eyes cast firmly on the ground, shielding yourself from the awful sight..?
A mother complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Zufari ride advert saying her eight-year-old daughter thought she was going to Africa.There are no words…
The commercial showed two children walking in the middle of an African plain with the sun rising over distant mountains with a voiceover saying ‘expect the unexpected’.
Chessington World of Adventures said the advert used creative licence to create a ‘heightened sense of reality’ but that white rhinos, giraffes, zebra, ostriches, several species of antelope and flamingos did actually feature in the ride.Thankfully, the ASA agreed:
The ASA said: “Overall, we concluded that the portrayal of the ride in the ad was unlikely to lead to children having unrealistic expectations of the experience of the ride.”Unless those children are raised by morons.
During the 2010 World Cup, a group of Dutch women were arrested on suspicion of ambush marketing, after they attended a match in bright dresses branded by a beer company that wasn't an official Fifa sponsor. Now think forward, not to the 2014 tournament, but to 2018, when technology like Google Glass could be the hot tool for these kinds of stunts.*baffled* And..?
"I think Google Glass is something we will see a lot of young people wearing: they'll be walking around and maybe they'll see advertising," said Sean Hayes, senior partner at law firm IPG Legal. "Maybe you'll go to a Fifa game, and on that screen you'll see advertising for Pepsi, but the official sponsor for Fifa is Coca-Cola."END TIMES, PEOPLE!!!!
This may sound like lawyers thinking up worst-case scenarios whose solution will invariably involve paying lots of money to lawyers.Well, yes. Yes, it does. And there's a good reason for that.
But in the shorter term, they highlighted some realistic concerns for broadcasters about third-party apps curating conversation, content and ads around their shows.This is a new world for me - I mean, sure, I like to Tweet occasionally while I'm watching something, but it seems there are huge numbers of people for whom watching a show isn't a complete experience without that...
"Second-screen is what you'd call a lawyer's paradise," said Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm from Dutch law firm Bureau Brandeis, who noted that there's little controversy around apps that simply provide a home for social chatter around a show.
"If you're not affiliated to the original producer, you can have a conversation about The Voice, for example, on the second screen, and we'd all agree that wouldn't be contradictory to copyright or trademark law," he said.
"But what happens if I'm using The Voice's trademarks on my second screen, or running my own election where I'm not choosing the candidates for their quality of singing, but on whoever looks best or tells the best jokes? You could put a gambling aspect into that, and on top of all that you could include your advertising."Nope. Still sounds a lot like lawyers thinking up worst-case scenarios to me!
Thijm suggested this is where broadcasters will want to do something about the second-screen app, but admitted that it's still unclear what kind of action they could take, and whether it would be successful.Well, the much-trumpeted 'success' in shutting down pirate sites proved to be less so, didn't it?
This doesn't just apply to second-screen TV apps like Shazam and Zeebox, or football-specific apps like The Football App. It can apply to the larger social networks too: if Facebook knows lots of football fans will be using its app during a World Cup match, it can sell ads to whatever brands it likes for that period of time.
"We really need to rethink our product placement and media regulation rules, because it doesn't work: why should I impose all these strict rules for broadcasters and television, and not have them for my iPhone and iPad?"The world is changing, and our laws haven't kept up? Say it ain't so!?!
Thijm predicted that the answer will not be to create more regulations for second-screen apps, but fellow panelist Dr. Ralph Oliver Graef from German firm GRAEF Rechtsanwälte, said that governments must take a clear decision.
"Either they have to down-regulate the broadcasting law, or up-regulate the other stuff," he said, while pointing out that there are plenty of other unresolved legal issues around the world of second-screen apps.More legislation, aimed at your mobile phone and tablet? We'll see.
A city council is blocking access to websites offering payday loans and stopping such lenders from advertising on billboards and bus stops.
Labour-led Plymouth city council is believed to be the first to take such action against companies that it believes are causing thousands of its residents to run up devastating debts.It won't be the last. Oh, dear me, no...
Chris Penberthy, the cabinet member for community development, said: "Plymouth's advice agencies are taking calls daily from people who are running up huge debts that are causing stress and hardship to them and their families. We need to protect people and make it difficult for payday loan companies to operate in our city."Because, god forbid there ever be consequences to your choices - took out a loan, didn't pay it back and now you're in debt? Why, how can that be your fault?
Penberthy said he hoped other local authorities would follow Plymouth's lead.And you know what? I just bet they do.
Plymouth has pre-empted any action that the Financial Conduct Authority may take when it assumes regulation of payday lenders in April 2014.So laying down the gauntlet for the FCA to go even further?
Representatives of payday lenders accused Plymouth of denying consumers choice. Russell Hamblin-Boone, chief executive of the Consumer Finance Association, said: "The council is effectively denying choice to local residents without fully understanding either the short-term lending industry or the way people are managing their finances in 2013.
"Research shows that 85% of payday customers have no trouble paying back their loans, so the council's belief that the loans are detrimental to those that take them is misplaced and not based on evidence."Pft! Don't confuse them with facts. They have their own feelings to consider. Facts just get in the way..
… the yuru kyara, or loose characters – a nationwide fraternity of about 1,000 different mascots who provide a touch of whimsy to the serious business of collecting taxes and saving the environment, to promoting tourist spots and regional cuisine.
Prince Pickles is animated face of Japan's self-defence forces, while Pipo-kun represents the Tokyo metropolitan police. Eeta-kun, whose head resembles a computer screen, encourages people to file their tax returns online.Well, he’s better than 'Hector' or even Moira Stewart, I suppose!
Spare a thought for Pluto-kun, or Little Mr Pluto, who appeared in the mid-1990s to soften the image of plutonium on behalf of Japan's nuclear industry.Errr....
Spare a thought for Sento-kun, who made his debut in 2008 as the "personification of the energy" of the ancient capital of Nara as it prepared to celebrate its 1,300th anniversary. But his shaved head, topped with a pair of antlers – apropos of the city's Buddhist tradition and large deer population – lent him an appearance that was widely denounced as the stuff of childhood nightmares.
For all his clever cultural references, Sento-kun was guilty of the most serious crime in the Japanese mascot world: he simply wasn't cute.Well, I don’t know about that. He’s rather like a chubby, oriental Herne The Hunter!
When the supermarket chain Waitrose challenged shoppers to "finish the sentence: 'I shop at Waitrose because …' #WaitroseReasons" on Monday, it could not have envisaged the subsequent Twitter storm as internet jokers piled in to ridicule the brand for its posh image.Or possibly it did, as one person pointed out:
One observer said: "People are saying Waitrose don't quite get Twitter because of #WaitroseReasons hashtag. I think they do. No such thing as bad publicity."Well, indeed!
In a rather po-faced statement…Really? I don't read it that way.
…Waitrose tweeted: "Thanks for all the genuine and funny #WaitroseReasons tweets. We always like to hear what you think and enjoyed reading most of them."Some of them were rather amusing:
With an eye on the quality of its grammar, one remarked: "I shop at Waitrose because …" you say "Ten items or fewer" not "Ten items or less", which is important"…Standards, people - Waitrose haz 'em!
