Ad description
Claims on a website selling business to business marketing lists, accessed in July 2011. The description for one such list sated "This is a truly unique list of the names, company names and e-mail addresses of the named most senior IT executives in medium and large sized UK organisations who are users of Lotus notes. Lotus Notes is the software package that provides electronic mail, database design, storage, and processing capabilities". Under the heading "Accuracy" the website stated "All names, company names and e-mail addresses were verified within the last 3 months, organisations who no longer use the Lotus Notes products are automatically removed from the e-mail database".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims:
1. "This is a truly unique list of the names, company names and e-mail addresses of the named most senior IT executives in medium and large sized UK organisations who are users of Lotus notes" was misleading because they believed the contacts listed were not senior IT executives or Lotus Notes users; and
2. "All names, company names and e-mail addresses were verified within the last 3 months, organisations who no longer use the Lotus Notes products are automatically removed from the e-mail database" could be substantiated because they believed that the names on the list they received had not been verified within the last three months.
Response
Systek Marketing Group (Systek) said that they were 'list brokers' and did not own the lists offered on their website. They said that this was made clear in a disclaimer on their website. They also pointed out that the website described their refund policy.
Systek submitted a copy of their list management agreement with the list owner for the Lotus Notes Users list. They pointed out that, under this agreement, they required the list owner to ensure that the list was as described and was cleansed four times a year. Systek acknowledged that confirming this in a contract did not necessarily mean that it happened in practice. The agreement, therefore, also required the list owner to have this cleansing carried out by an independent third party, whose details were stated in the list management agreement. They invited the ASA to contact the list owner and the independent data bureau to verify this. Systek provided a sample of ten contacts from the list.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA noted that Systek did not own the list and that this was mentioned in a disclaimer found on their website. We also noted that their list management agreement required the list owner to confirm that the list was accurate, kept up to date and that an independent data bureau was used to ensure this. Nevertheless we considered that Systek were responsible for ensuring the claims made on their website complied with the Code.
We noted that the complainant told us that they had purchased the list and found its contents inaccurate. The complainant asserted that the phone numbers and addresses on the list did not correspond to the contacts or companies provided. The complainant stated that they checked approximately 100 contacts, which were all inaccurate. We noted the sample submitted by Systek, but because we had not chosen the sample ourselves we considered that the sample was an inadequate means of verifying the full list's accuracy. We therefore asked Systek for a copy of the full list for verification but they declined to provide one. We noted that rule 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. of the CAP Code stated, "Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation". In the absence of adequate substantiation to prove that the list was accurate and as described we concluded that the ad was in breach of the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
