ASA Adjudications

NSPCC
42 Curtain Road
London
EC2 8NH
Number of complaints: 3
Date:12 September 2007
Media:Mailing
Sector:Non-commercial
Agency:WWAV Rapp Collins

Ad
A direct mailing, for ChildLine, contained a mock counsellor log sheet and a letter. The log sheet included handwritten details of three calls to ChildLine; text stated "FACTS  FATHER VIOLENT TOWARDS STEP-MOTHER AFTER DRINKING: ABUSIVE, SHOUTING, PUNCHING. SOMETIMES XXX IS THE SUBJECT OF ARGUMENTS, SO BLAMES HIMSELF FOR FIGHTING + VIOLENE [sic] ... FACTS  CALLER SAID BABYSITTER HAS BEEN DOING THINGS TO HER THAT SHE DOESN'T LIKE. LOOKED AT WAYS OF TELLING HER MOTHER + HOW HER MOTHER MIGHT REACT WHEN TOLD. CALLER ENCOURAGED TO PHONE BACK WITH UPDATE ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING ... FACTS  CALLER DID NOT SAY ANYTHING BUT SOBBED UNCONTROLLABLY FOR THE FIRST 2 MINUTES OF CALL. THEN ASKED WHETHER I WOULD TELL ANYONE WHAT HE SAID. THEN BURST OUT CRYING + CONTINUED TO SOB. ENDED THE CALL SUDDENLY." The log sheet also included details of the time and duration of each call and the age of the caller. The accompanying letter explained that many children who tried to call ChildLine did not get through and invited recipients to donate to the charity. The front of the envelope stated, in hand-written text, "WE CALLED BUT THERE WAS NO ANSWER"; a registered charity number was printed in small print on the back of the flap.

Issue
Three complainants, who believed recipients of the mailing could think the counsellor log sheet was genuine, challenged whether the mailing was misleading and irresponsible and would cause undue fear or distress, especially to those who had suffered abuse.
The CAP Code: 2.2;7.1;9.1;22.1

Response
NSPCC believed the ad made clear that it was a request for money and pointed out that part of their remit was to ensure that the general public knew that abuse existed. They asserted that every ad they made was therefore intended to educate the reader, as well as ask for money. They said the letter in the mailing told two stories of children which were taken from a number of real life examples of children whom ChildLine had been able to help, whereas the log sheet represented the type of calls their counsellors received and was deliberately not graphic or offensive.

NSPCC believed the letter made clear it had not been targeted to a specific person; they pointed out there was no name or address on the letter or the envelope. They said, however, they had reviewed the ad and now believed it was not clear in the letter that the log sheet gave examples, rather than factual accounts, of the type of calls their ChildLine volunteers received.  They said they would re-word future ads to make that clear. They said they would add the text "MESSAGE FROM THE NSPCC: These case studies draw from a number of real life examples of NSPCC practice with children and their families, however they are not intended to represent the details of any specific individual(s) or their circumstances". NSPCC asserted that the log sheet had been placed in the middle of the mailing and therefore, if the contents were taken out together, the log sheet would not be the first sheet seen by recipients.

NSPCC pointed out that their charity number was on the back of the envelope; they believed that made clear who the mailing was from. They also pointed out that the ad included a donation form, a clear request for £2 a month in the body copy of the letter and a paragraph to apologise if the person who received the mailing already supported the NSPCC; they said there were logos and branding on the letter. They said, following complaints they had received, they intended to amend the wording on the envelope to make clear they had not called at the recipient's address; they said they would also place their name on the back of the flap.  

NSPCC said the mailing was delivered to 200,000 households and they had received 143 complaints; some were specific to the design, others were about fundraising in general.

NSPCC said they intended to repeat the mailing later in the year.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA accepted that the NSPCC aimed to raise awareness of the issue of child abuse and that such a distressing subject was likely to cause discomfort when presented in any medium; nevertheless, we took the view that any discomfort inherent in the subject of child abuse ought to be balanced by the worthwhile purpose of raising awareness of it.  We considered that recipients were likely to understand the importance of the issue the mailing presented and that individuals who had suffered abuse would be likely to appreciate the work of the NSPCC and the message contained within the mailing.  We concluded that the mailing was unlikely to be seen as irresponsible and, if clearly identifiable as marketing material and as an example of the type of calls ChildLine received, the approach was unlikely to mislead or cause undue fear and distress.

We considered, however, that although it included a registered charity number in small print on the rear, the envelope did not make clear that it contained marketing material from the NSPCC. We understood from the complainants that the log sheet was the first page recipients saw on opening the mailing; we considered that, in the absence of clarifying text, the log sheet did not make clear that the details were examples of the type of calls received. We considered that some recipients could believe the log sheet was genuine and, because it could be the first thing they would see and because the envelope did not make clear who it was from, the mailing could mislead and cause undue fear or distress to some recipients. We noted the letter did not make clear the calls on the counsellor log sheet were not genuine but considered that, even if it did, the log sheet could still mislead and cause fear and distress if it was read before the letter. We welcomed NSPCC's willingness to amend the mailing.

We considered that some recipients could initially infer from the hand-written text "WE CALLED BUT THERE WAS NO ANSWER" on the front of the envelope that someone had visited their home, particularly because the envelope did not make clear it contained marketing material.  However, we considered that, in the context of the mailing as a whole, readers would understand that the phrase "WE CALLED BUT THERE WAS NO ANSWER" referred to the fact that many children tried to call ChildLine but did not get through.  We concluded that, particularly if the envelope made clear it contained marketing material, the phrase "WE CALLED BUT THERE WAS NO ANSWER" was unlikely to mislead, be seen as irresponsible or cause undue fear or distress.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 9.1 (Fear and distress) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers). We also investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 2.2 (Responsible advertising) but did not find it in breach.
Action
We told NSPCC to make clear on the envelope that it contained marketing material and to make clear on the counsellor log sheet that the calls were not genuine.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

back | top