ASA Adjudication on Markiteer Ltd

Ad

A direct mailing, for a business opportunity, stated "David, would you be interested if I gave you the opportunity of earning yourself £25,000-£500,000 a year working alongside me with what's in these boxes which I took delivery of this morning?" The mailing included several earnings claims; "you might be interested to know that one of the students I worked with last year has already banked over £150,000.00 whilst another student who I also helped to get started has now banked around £200,000.00", "I've earned over £197,000 from just one project … That works out at £16,416.66 Per Week!" and "part of his 2007 target of creating 5 new FAST TRACK Millionaires".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the mailing was misleading because it did not make clear:

1. the nature of the business opportunity being offered; and  

2. that the recipient would have to pay to take up the opportunity.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Markiteer said they taught people how to use direct marketing techniques to market information products, such as DVDs, CDs, manuals, courses, workshops and seminars. They said, since 2001, they had been involved in marketing or helping to market several different items that they believed were not business opportunities. Markiteer said their approach was often to use a small classified newspaper ad, which led to further details available on a website, or a single page letter, which invited customers to view details on a website. They said that was also the approach  they taught.

Markiteer maintained that the mailing was sent only to their existing 'students'. They said the students in question had all paid for and enrolled in a course delivered via monthly written modules, backed up with DVDs.  Markiteer stressed that recipients of the letter were not ordinary members of the public but business minded people who would be running, or would have been about to run, their own information marketing business.  They maintained that, even if they had yet to start trading, recipients would have been aware of exactly what was involved as they were already students of the course.

Markiteer pointed out that the letter referred to additional products and previous correspondence.  They believed it was unrealistic to suggest someone could pay for and receive monthly course modules, then receive several letters in a row about taking on licences for new information products that were directly linked to what they had been studying, but not know the nature of the communication written.  Markiteer pointed out that the letter invited recipients to access a website where everything was spelt out in detail. They said the website was free to access, using the allocated password for that private student and required no commitment from them.  Markiteer maintained that, because a business proposal involving licensing was very detailed it was not viable to print out and post the whole thing to everyone who might be interested.  They believed the letter and the website should be considered as a single communication because neither made sense without the other.

2. Markiteer said the mailing was sent only to existing 'students', who paid for the tuition they received on the course. They considered that the mailing asked for nothing more than interested parties to read information made available to those customers on the website. They said the website made clear that recipients would have to pay to take up the offer but they also pointed out that anyone who took up the offer would have to read the website, which contained full details of what it involved.  Markiteer maintained that they went through the contractual details with each applicant personally and applicants had the right to their money back at any time.  Markiteer pointed out that CAP Code clause 52.5 stated "the initial marketing communication should normally state if an investment is required" and because the mailing referred to previous correspondence it could not be considered to be the "initial marketing communication".  Markiteer maintained that the Code did not require them to make clear that recipients would have to pay to take up the offer.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the mailing did not state the nature of the advertised opportunity.  We noted Markiteer maintained that they included full details of their business proposal on a separate secure website but they did not provide us with a copy of the details contained on it. We noted the Code allowed marketers to state a clear description of the work involved in a business opportunity in follow-up material made available to all consumers before commitment.  We considered that recipients were likely to be familiar with the general concepts used by Markiteer but because we had not seen the website, which Markiteer maintained made clear the nature of the advertised opportunity, we concluded the ad breached the Code.

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.5 (Employment and Business Opportunities).

2. Upheld

We noted the mailing featured no reference to any cost associated with the business opportunity offered.  We noted Markiteer maintained that the secure website featured full details of the business opportunity and made clear that payment was required.  We noted the Code allowed marketers to include information, such as the nature of the opportunity, in 'follow-up' literature, but it stated that the initial marketing communication should normally state if an investment was required.  We considered that the mailing was the initial correspondence about the business opportunity and that it should have stated that a financial investment was required.  We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clauses  7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.5 (Employment and Business Opportunities).

Action

We told Markiteer to ensure that future ads made clear the nature of any business opportunity being offered and the extent of any financial investment.  We advised Markiteer to obtain CAP copy advice.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)