ASA Adjudication on Independent Journals Ltd

Ad

A direct mailing, from Independent Journals Ltd, incorporated a booklet and an invoice. The booklet was entitled "Crime Awareness 08-09" and included several pages of advertising. One ad purported to be for the Royal Academy of Arts in London and gave the telephone number, address and website of the Academy. The accompanying invoice quoted an invoice number and asked for payment of £299.00 for a ¼ page ad in the Crime Awareness 2008/2009 booklet, with a 5% discount offered for prompt payment. Details of how to pay, by cheque, credit or debit card and BACS transfer, were provided.

Issue

The Royal Academy of Arts (the Academy), who pointed out that the artwork used in the featured ad was not supplied by them, challenged whether the invoice was dishonest and misleading, because it sought payment for an ad, which had been placed in the booklet without the Academys request or prior consent.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Independent Journals (IJ) explained that they had approached the Academy in November 2008 and had sought verbal approval regarding the placement of an ad in their booklet.  They said they had then employed a design agency, who confirmed that the artwork used had been taken from the Academy's website, to draw up the ad.  Upon publication, IJ issued the Academy with a copy of the booklet and invoice.  They explained that they had contacted the Academy by phone again before sending the booklet and also after receipt of it was taken to ask if the Academy would like to take advantage of a five per cent discount for prompt payment as per their procedures.

IJ added that, in lieu of the complaint, they would contact the Academy to explain their procedures and would withdraw the ad and invoice.  They said they would ensure that the Academy was not contacted again for marketing purposes.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that the Academy had no knowledge of having agreed to place an ad with IJ and, upon receipt of the booklet, had contacted other advertisers who appeared on the same page who they also found had no prior knowledge of an advertising agreement.  The Academy said they had received two telephone calls from a representative from IJ: firstly, to let them know that the ad had been published in the booklet and then to offer a reduction on the price for prompt payment.  

In the absence of any written agreement, and in view of the Academy's argument that they had not approved the ad or given permission for its placement, we concluded that the invoice had misleadingly sought payment, by dishonestly implying an agreement existed between IJ and the Academy.

The invoice breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty) and 7.1 (Misleading advertising).

Action

The invoice must not appear again in its current form.  We advised IJ that they should be able to demonstrate that agreements existed and requests for payment were valid.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)