Cookies policy statement
We are using cookies on our site to provide you with the best user experience.
Disabling cookies may prevent our website from working efficiently. Click ok to remove this message (we will remember your choice).
OK

ASA Adjudication on Spyhole Press Ltd

Spyhole Press Ltd t/a ConVerse

175 Hill Lane
Manchester
M9 6RL

Date:

22 July 2009

Media:

Press general

Sector:

Publishing

Number of complaints:

1

Complaint Ref:

80559

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.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

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

THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 29TH April 2009. THE VERDICT REMAINS UPHELD BUT THE WORDING HAS CHANGED.

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 print invoices ConVerse had supplied showed their print run figures exceeded the distribution figures that the competitor publication claimed for itself. We also noted, however, that those same figures which ConVerse 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 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 that the term "circulation" was likely to be understood in the publishing industry, and by advertisers paying for space in a publication, as having the meaning defined by the ABC and therefore to be an indication of the number of copies of a publication that had actually reached its intended readership. We considered that in ads of this kind the term "circulation" should be used only in the way defined by the ABC and that a clear distinction between "circulation" and "distribution" should be maintained.

Because ConVerse had been unable to substantiate that more copies of their publication had been "circulated" than had been the case for their competitors we concluded that the ad 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 which it had "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)

Making a complaint

Find out what types of ads we deal with and how to make a complaint.

How to complain

Adjudications

View our latest weekly ASA adjudications or search for rulings from the last five years.

Adjudications

Non-compliant online advertisers

Check the list of non-compliant online advertisers.

Non-compliant online advertisers

Sign up

Sign up for adjudications alerts and newsletters.

Sign up

Already registered? Log in

Follow Us

For ASA news, including our weekly rulings, press releases, research and reports.
ASA_UK

Dealing with complaints - FAQs

We work hard to ensure our complaints procedures are transparent. Here we answer some commonly asked questions about how we handle complaints.

Dealing with complaints - FAQs

Advertising Standards Authority Ltd, Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London WC1V 6QT  |  Copyright © 2012 ASA