Adjudication of the Advertising Standard Authority:
 
Complaint:
Objections, including several from Trading Standards departments, to an insert in the Mirror, the Sun, the Daily Mail and the TV Times, OK and Chat magazines. The insert was in the form of a handwritten letter and stated "Dear I'm writing to inform you that I will be terminating my contract effective as of ... I will be transferring my business to Virgin Mobile, who will not charge me to pick up my messages. Nor will they sting me with peak call charges, or stitch me up for line rental every month to the tune of 25 BLEEDIN' QUID, whilst having the nerve to tell me I'm getting free calls! And, to top it off, because I'm joining Virgin Mobile in June, whatever airtime I use in my first month, they'll give me back free (in the real sense of the word) to use whenever! In fact, they're offering me pretty much everything that you're blimmin' well not!! So you can take your contract, and shove it where the phone don't ring!!! NAFF OFF!!! Yours vengefully,... (A former customer of yours who's seen red)."

The complainants objected to the insert because they believed:

1. it was likely to cause serious or widespread offence;

2. it was not sufficiently clear that the insert was advertising material;

3. the tone of the insert could cause undue fear and distress; and

4. it could encourage children to emulate the language used in the insert.

Adjudication:
The Sun, the Mirror and the TV Times said they did not normally pre-vet inserts placed by companies who had advertised with them before but would if the advertisers asked them to. The Sun and the Mirror said the insert had been submitted late denying them the chance to remove it from publication.
The TV Times said they believed the insert was part of a campaign but it had been changed without their knowledge. All the publishers said that if they had seen the mailing before publication they would not have allowed it to be used.

1. Complaints upheld
The advertisers said they were aware that the Authority had carried out research that showed swearing in advertisements was a particularly sensitive subject. They said they had consulted the Authority report "Delete Expletives?", which examined acceptable and unacceptable language, and had avoided using any of the 28 words the public found offensive contained in the report. The advertisers said the use of the word "bleedin" had been approved by the BACC for their television advertisements. They said the language used in the advertisement was not intended to offend and they did not believe it would cause serious or widespread offence. The advertisers said they had no plans to continue using the insert. The Authority considered that, although many of the words used in the advertisement were not, in themselves, offensive, the insert was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, because the insert had been designed to resemble a handwritten letter and because its tone was aggressive. The Authority advised the advertisers to seek help from the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Copy Advice team before using a similar approach.

2. Complaints upheld
The advertisers said the fictional letter was from a mobile phone user and made clear in its first sentence that the subject of the letter was transferring business to Virgin Mobile. The advertisers did not believe the insert could be mistaken for anything except advertising material. They said they had insisted that Virgin Mobile and the telephone number were clearly printed on the insert. If confused, readers could see who the advertiser was and that the advertisement was printed, not handwritten. The Authority noted the advertisers' name and telephone number were printed on the reverse of the insert and were not immediately visible to the reader.
It considered that, because the advertisers' name was not visible on the front of the insert and because "Virgin Mobile" did not stand out from the other text, it was not clear that the insert was advertising material. The Authority advised the advertisers to seek help from the CAP Copy Advice team before using a similar approach.

3. Complaints upheld
The advertisers said they were not trying to scare readers. They said the insert was a novel, humorous attempt at asking people to question their current mobile phone network; that question was constantly referenced throughout the insert. Because the advertisers had used such an aggressive tone in an untargeted insert, the Authority considered that recipients would not realise the insert was advertising material and concluded that it was likely to cause undue fear and distress. The Authority advised the advertisers to seek help from the CAP Copy Advice team before using a similar approach.

4. Complaints upheld
The advertisers said the insert was not intended for children and did not feature children. They said they had specifically selected print media that was targetted at adults and had not used the insert as the basis for poster advertising that could be seen by children. The advertisers said they could not be held responsible if children were allowed to see material not intended
for them. The Authority considered that, because it was used in publications that had content for both adults and children, the insert would be read by children and could encourage them to copy the language used. The Authority advised the advertisers to seek help from the CAP Copy Advice team before using a similar approach in family orientated publications.