ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Business Internet Directory

Complaint

Objections to a direct mailing for an online directory service. Text stated "IMPORTANT DATED MATERIAL ... Dear Sir or Madam: YOUR NEW BUSINESS TELEPHONE LINE It is important that your new business details are present and correct on the national directory for UK businesses. Business Internet Directory is responsible for listing over 2 Million businesses on the Internet. This ensures that the details listed below can be found online. As you can see you need to inform us of your business category so that we can activate your listing. Please call Limited Company Registrations on ... so that we may complete your details ... Yours Sincerely Limited Company Registrations." The back of the mailing listed the "Terms of Business".

The complainants objected that the mailing was misleading because it did not make clear:

1. it was an ad and exaggerated the importance of the service and

2. a contract would be entered into and a fee payable if a recipient responded.

CAP Code

Adjudication

1. Complaints upheld

Business Internet Directory (BID) asserted that they provided one of the largest and most significant business directory services nationwide, with over two million separate business entries. They believed it was important for any UK business to be on one of the major national directories and argued it was self-evident that for a business to be competitive and to enhance its trade it should utilise the BID service, which was visited on 4.5 million separate occasions in 2005.

BID asserted that the mailing was clearly marketing material from a private business and pointed out that the company name, address and VAT registration number were all clearly shown on the mailing.

BID asserted that, although the letter emphasised it was in businesses' best interests to respond, it was clear from the letter that a response was not required. They argued that the commercially aware sector of the public to whom the letter was addressed would understand the only adverse effect of not responding would be an inaccurate listing in the directory. They stated that only 11% of recipients responded to letters sent in the last quarter of 2005 and argued that this showed recipients understood they did not have to respond.

The ASA noted BID's assertion about the size and importance of their service and that BID's details were clearly shown on the mailing. We considered, however, that the claim "IMPORTANT DATED MATERIAL" which could be seen through the window of the envelope and the claims inside, "It is important that your new business details are present and correct on the national directory for UK businesses" and "As you can see you need to inform us ... ", implied recipients needed to contact BID and exaggerated the importance of the mailing by suggesting it was more than just a marketing communication. We advised BID to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before sending out future mailings.

The mailing breached CAP Code clauses 6.1 (Honesty), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers).

2. Complaints not upheld

BID said customers who contacted them were offered their priority service and were told if they took the service there would be a charge, and a contract would be entered into. Customers who did not take up the priority service were given a basic one-line entry in the directory for no charge and did not enter into a contract.

We noted, although customers who took up the priority service were charged a fee and entered into a contract, customers who responded to the mailing could have the basic service for no charge and without a contract. We concluded that, because recipients who responded had the option of whether to pay a fee and enter into a contract or obtain an entry for free, the mailing was unlikely to mislead.

The mailing was investigated under CAP code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but was not found in breach.