ASA Adjudication on Memel Ltd

Ad

A leaflet, for Memel Ltd, stated "UNWANTED CLOTHING SOS CHILDREN We ask you for your kind support in raising funds for orphans ... Your contributions will make a great difference to the children and we believe that with your help we will reach all of our objectives. For more information on supporting SOS CHILDREN CHARITY please visit the website: www.sos-vaikai.lt … ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IS FILL THE PLASTIC BAG(S) WITH YOUR GOOD QUALITY UNWANTED ITEMS ... MEMEL LTD. Registered in England No. 5700273 ..."

Issue

1. Clothes Aid and Northamptonshire Trading Standards Service challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it implied Memel Ltd was a charity.

2. Clothes Aid also challenged whether Memel could substantiate the claim that they were raising funds to help orphans.

3. The ASA challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that not all funds raised through the collections would go to support the SOS Vaikai charity.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Memel said they worked with a children's charity in Lithuania and collected clothes on its behalf.  The charity was called SOS Vaikai, which translated as SOS children. They said they had a sponsorship agreement with SOS Vaikai, which stated that they would transfer 1500 Litas (Lt) (approximately £300) per month to SOS Vaikai until the total support reached an amount of 18,000 Lt.  Memel provided a copy of that sponsorship agreement and evidence to demonstrate that they had transferred money each month to SOS Vaikai.

Memel said they were a limited liability company, not a charity, and they held any additional money made from their collections for the company's development, employment expenses and transportation expenses.  They said, however, they were aware that their leaflet had led to some misunderstanding and they had therefore amended it to make clearer that Memel was a registered company, not a charity, and they had a sponsorship agreement with the Lithuanian charity, SOS Vaikai.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Memel had a sponsorship agreement with the Lithuanian charity SOS Vaikai and that, through that agreement, a certain amount of the proceeds raised from the collections went to the charity.

We considered, however, that the text "We ask for your kind support in raising funds for orphans" and "your contributions will make a great difference to the children", along with the presentation of the leaflet, which was similar to genuine charity leaflets, implied that Memel was a charity.  We also noted the ad stated "Memel Ltd. Registered in England No. 5700273" and we considered that, in the absence of qualification, readers might infer that Memel was a registered charity.  Because the ad did not make sufficiently clear that Memel were a limited company or that they merely had a sponsorship agreement with the separate SOS Vaikai charity to donate a specific amount of funds, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Not upheld

We noted SOS Vaikai was a Lithuanian based charity, which helped orphans and homeless children.  We noted Memel had a sponsorship agreement with SOS Vaikai and they had demonstrated that they sent £300 a month to SOS Vaikai in line with that agreement.  Although we noted not all the funds Memel raised went straight to SOS Vaikai, and therefore towards helping orphans, we considered that Memel had substantiated that at least some of the funds they raised were helping orphans.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld

We noted Memels sponsorship agreement with SOS Vaikai meant they transferred the agreed amount of 1500 Lt, which was around £300, per month to the charity and they would continue to transfer that amount until they reached the agreed total of 18,000 Lt, which was around £4000.

We noted, however, the ad did not make clear that Memel would transfer only a certain amount of the proceeds they made to SOS Vaikai and we considered that in the absence of any information to the contrary, readers were likely to understand that all proceeds from clothing collections would go towards supporting the SOS Vaikai charity.  We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We welcomed Memels action in amending the ad to make it clearer that they were a registered company and not a charity.  We told them to amend the ad to make clear that only a certain amount of the proceeds they made went to charity.  We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team for their future advertising.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)