ASA Adjudications

Accident Advice Helpline
Accident Advice House
Merrion Avenue
Stanmore
Middlesex
HA7 4RP
Number of complaints: 3
Date:31 January 2007
Media:Television
Sector:Business
Agency:Attinger Jack Advertising

Ad
A TV ad, for Accident Advice Helpline, featured Esther Rantzen in an audience participation talk show TV studio.  On-screen text briefly stated "Advertisement". Speaking to the camera, she said "All my working life I've campaigned for people to have access to justice.  If you have been injured and someone else is to blame the law says you are entitled to compensation. That's why I want you to know about 'Accident Advice Helpline'.  They offer free expert advice and, if they agree you have a good case, their lawyers will fight it for you on a straight no win no fee basis".  While she was talking, on-screen text stated "Should I claim for my injury, Esther?" which then changed to "Accident Advice Helpline 0800 xxx".  She then interviewed a woman who had received compensation.  On-screen text stated "Sue received £9560 compensation after falling over an uneven pavement".  Turning to the camera again Esther said "If you've been injured through no fault of your own call Accident Advice Helpline now on xxx. The compensation you deserve could be just a phone call away".  The telephone number and company logo appeared on screen.
Issue
Three viewers said the style of the ad was similar to audience participation issue-led TV programmes; the type of programme associated with presenter Esther Rantzen in which she often gave impartial advice.  One of the viewers said the helpline number in the ad was reminiscent of helpline numbers given during such programmes which added to the impression of impartiality.  All three complainants believed the ad was misleading because viewers might be confused into thinking they were watching an unbiased advice programme rather than an ad.
BCAP TV Advertising Code: 2.1.2;2.2.2;5.1;5.4.7

Response
Accident Advice Helpline said the ad had been broadcast at regular intervals since September 2003, but this was the first complaint they had received, despite the numerous broadcasts.  They did not believe that the ad suggested to viewers that they were watching a TV show and pointed out that the ad began with a caption that stated "Advertisement".   They explained that the ad was aimed at a daytime audience and was scheduled in end of programme advertising slots rather than mid-programme.  They said it was rarely shown around current affairs type programming.   

They said that Accident Advice Helpline was the trading name of the company and the telephone number used in the ad was a unique freephone 0800 number, the same type used by other commercial companies.  They did not see how the company name or telephone number was misleading as they do offer free advice.

Accident Advice Helpline believed there was no confusion or conflict in featuring Esther Rantzen in the ad.  They explained that, as a well known and respected TV personality, they wanted to use her presenting skills, and used a studio setting because it was one with which viewers would be familiar and could relate to.  They said it was a natural environment for Ms Rantzen to interview clients, who were all real customers with real claims. They pointed out that at no time during the advertising campaign had Ms Rantzen hosted an audience participation show or fronted a consumer advice programme.  Her most recent TV series had been filmed on location and exposed rogue traders rather than offering consumer advice.  They said that consumer advice programmes lasted longer than the 60 seconds of the ad, and they did not believe that viewers would think they were watching an impartial advice programme.  They believed it was perfectly clear that it was an advertising message.  

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they believed there was no evidence to show that viewers were actually being misled by the ad.  They pointed out that this was the first complaint they had received since the ad went on air in 2003, which they believed suggested that viewers were not confused. They said onscreen text had clearly stated that it was an ad.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted that the Code required there to be a clear distinction between programmes and ads and that the style of an ad should not confuse viewers as to whether they were watching a programme or an ad.

We acknowledged that the ad was similar in style to the type of programmes once associated with Esther Rantzen. However, because Ms Rantzen had not appeared in such programmes for some years, we considered viewers were unlikely to be confused by her participation in the ad.  We also considered that the on-screen text, "Advertisement", shown at the start of the ad had clearly identified it as such.  Given the prominent use of the company name and telephone number in the ad, we considered it unlikely to mislead viewers into thinking they were watching a TV programme.  We noted that all three complainants had recognised that they were watching an ad and concluded that viewers would not be misled.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 2.1.2, 2.2.2 (Separation of advertisements and programmes), 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.4.7 (Identification of the advertiser) but did not find it in breach.
Action
We reminded the advertiser that if Esther Rantzen returned to presenting consumer programmes, the ad was unlikely to be acceptable.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

back | top