ASA Adjudication on McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd

Ad

A postcard-size direct mailing, printed in red and yellow, from McIntyre & Dodd Marketing was headed “Undelivered Award Claim Form”. Text continued “Please use this card to claim the undelivered award reserved for you Award held for a limited time - may be reallocated … Dear XXXX, We have an undelivered award ready for despatch to you, so we need to confirm your details are correct …”. Text overleaf stated “Claim your undespatched award today Top Award of £20,000 still unclaimed Your GUARANTEED Award is determined by your award number: XXXXXX … To discover your allocated award now, call 09061 XXXXXX* … Your award is one of the following: £20,000 in CASH 32” Sony Widescreen Television £1,000 Gift Voucher £5,000 Kitchen or Cash £250 CASH”. The asterisk was linked to smallprint that stated “*Calls cost £1.50 per minute from a BT landline … If you wish to receive a verification code by post, please write with your award number to Dept. VC, Unclaimed Prize Register … Major award recipient list and rules available from “Dept WR” at address above … Queries? Contact Customer Services at UPR … No purchase necessary. Awards limited to 1 x £20,000 Cash, 4 x £5,000 Kitchen, 1000+ x £1,000 Gift Vouchers, 8 x £250 Cash, 4 x Sony Widescreen TV. £1,000 worth of gift vouchers redeemable only against UK World Gift Catalogue …”.

Issue

Two complainants believed the mailing was misleading because it looked like a Royal Mail failed delivery notice.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

McIntyre & Dodd Marketing (M&D) said they had been in business for over 10 years and always sought to organise fun, entertaining and lawful promotions. They explained that they relied heavily on repeat business and the long-term goodwill of their customers, which, in turn, necessitated that the promotions were always enjoyable to enter and offered items of genuine value. They said they endeavoured to be straightforward and clear in all their promotions.

M&D believed it was immediately apparent to anyone in receipt of the Award Claim Form that the promotion was not being run by the Royal Mail. They added that there was no suggestion on the Form that the Royal Mail were holding a parcel for collection on a customer's behalf. They said wording on the Form made clear who was offering the award and how to obtain it: they pointed to text on the Form that stated "Return your claim card with an S.A.E to: Unclaimed Prize Register, PO Box 107 ...". They said all recipients of the mailing had previously responded to one of their promotions and received an award: they argued that those customers would, therefore, be familiar with M&D promotions, making confusion less likely. They added that, in their view, when taken as a whole and in context, no member of the public was likely to be misled into responding to the mailing in the belief that it was a Royal Mail failed delivery notice.

They said they were aware of the existence and format of the Royal Mail failed delivery notice and had made extensive efforts to avoid any resemblance to it. They pointed out that differences between their Award Claim Form and the Royal Mail failed delivery notice rendered any confusion between the two unlikely: they pointed out several differences between the colour, text and graphics of the two leaflets. M&D also pointed out that the consumers complaint had been that the mailing was misleading because it looked like a Royal Mail failed delivery notice and argued that, since it did not, the complaint should not be upheld.

M&D said the colours used in the mailing were generated simply to attract attention to a mailing of small dimensions and explained that red and yellow had been shown in many marketing studies to have the highest stand-out value. They pointed out that, although the background of the mailing was red and yellow, the text was printed in black. They asserted that they had not deliberately chosen the colours to coincide with those used by the Royal Mail. They also pointed out that the mailing, being A6 in size, was not the same size as a standard Royal Mail postcard.

M&D said the mailing had been approved by their Royal Mail account manager and, despite sending out over one million and receiving several thousand replies, they had not received any complaints directly. They suggested however that, to avoid ambiguity in future, they would include a disclaimer beneath the Royal Mail postage impression to clarify that the mailing was not connected to the Royal Mail.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted there were several differences in the appearance of M&D's "Undelivered Award Claim Form" and the Royal Mail failed delivery notice. We considered, however, that although it did not look the same as a Royal Mail leaflet, because it was headlined "Undelivered Award Claim Form", included text such as "Please use this card to claim the undelivered award reserved for you" and incorporated the Royal Mail brand colours, red and yellow, the initial implication was that an attempted delivery to recipients had been unsuccessful. We also considered that recipients of the mailing were unlikely to simultaneously have a Royal Mail leaflet to compare the mailing with, and dissimilarities between the appearances of the two were unlikely to be recognised. We concluded ultimately that, although it was not identical to a Royal Mail failed delivery notice, consumers could be confused about the nature of M&D's "Undelivered Award Claim Form" and, although we welcomed M&D's willingness to amend it, we considered that the inclusion of the suggested disclaimer alone would not go far enough.

The mailing breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told M&D to ensure that the nature of any future mailings was made clear to avoid ambiguity. We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before amending the mailing or issuing future, similar marketing material.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)