Annoying dreamer

umop3p!sdn said:
When we last ran a radio advertising campaign, we instructed the radio station that we didn't want any of our adverts on after Harvy Norman for precisely this reason.
Click to expand...
I'd wondered whether other advertisers would take this approach. You need to specify a gap after their ad though, because having changed channel, I'm going to stay where I've hopped to until they play a truly awful song or run the Harvey Norman ad.
I've had the joys of channel hopping from one Harvey Norman ad to another to another. That shouldn't be allowed. There should be a rule that they can only pollute one channel at a time.
 
My own personal "un-favourite" is the Bewley's Hotel campaign featuring people with South Dublin accents talking about staying in Bewleys everytime they are up in Dublin to see a show, etc.
 
Since reading this thread i have the annoying "harvey norman song" palying in my head! Argh!!!!!!
 
What's the deal with the Telly Bingo ads?

It started as
Telly Bingo Tuesday Night etc, etc, etc.
then
Telly Bingo Twice a week etc, etc, etc.

Now it's something like
Telly Bingo dum dee dum.

The words horse dead and flogging spring to mind in no particular order.

-Rd
 
My most hated ad campaign is for eircom Phonewatch (they've also called to our house twice in the past 2 months- despite already having an intruder alarm). They use scare tactics in their radio campaigns (and the product is poor IMHO). I've lodged an official complaint with the advertising standards authority- but unfortunately it was not upheld- despite a history of complaints against eircom for similar campaigns in the past. So what do you do? I now switch off when I hear the ad, this may have something to do with the fact that our house was burgled in the past (before we had an alarm) and I resent being reminded of it each time i hear that ad.
 
Actually I had a problem with one of their Ad's but I had just written to ASAI about another Eircom issue that was rejected and I let this one slide.

Their Ad claimed that you have a 70% chance of having your house burgled while you're in it. I presume they were trying to say that 70% of burglaries happen while someone is at home, but that's wildly different from what they claimed. Usually when statistics are presented in Ad's they are spun to make a point, but remain Honest.

-Rd
 
Would you mind me asking what was the nature of your complaint to the ASAI? I also made a second complaint against Eircom and I'm still awaiting a (satisfactory) response from ASAI. Basically I felt their "special offer" was fundamentally flawed. They consistently offer money off or free monitoring for a certain no. of months as an incentive to join up. However given that this is offered every month (either money off or free monitoring, alternating each month) how can this be a special offer, i.e when does the offer not apply and you pay the "full price". I'm still waiting on an answer!
 
It's a while ago and I can't remember the specifics of it, but it related to their Broadband or High Speed service. Their TV add pointed you to a Website, and the Website made some claims about their service that weren't true. I can't remember the specific issue now.

One of my issues was about pricing I think.
The other was about their claim that you could download CD quality audio.
At the time there were no Legal sources of Audio on the Web. I didn't feel it was appropriate to promote the illegal things that you culd do with their service as a selling point for it.

Anyway it was rejected because the claims were made on their website, and the ASAI only consider something Advertising if you pay someone else (TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, etc.) to promote it.

Apparently a website doesn't count.

So, anyone wanting to get around the ASAI, stick a web address in your ad and then lie to your hearts content.

-Rd
 
daltonr said:
Anyway it was rejected because the claims were made on their website, and the ASAI only consider something Advertising if you pay someone else (TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, etc.) to promote it.

Apparently a website doesn't count.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify this also includes paid-for website/internet based advertising. See [broken link removed]:
Could it be argued that a company pays its hosting service provider to host advertisments that it places on its (the company's) website?
 
Could it be argued that a company pays its hosting service provider to host advertisments that it places on its (the company's) website?
Click to expand...

Not according to the letter I got from ASAI. Banners on other peoples sites are covered. But content on your own site is not. I was complaining about Content on Eircom's own website.

I'm not a lawyer but to me a companies website is the same as a leaflet through the door. They both have to be paid for in order to get them to the customer. Are leaflets covered by ASAI???

Not that it matters a damn. I have a letter from ASAI telling me that they asked PTSB to pull their "Best Interest Rate" Ads, and IFSRA claim that THEY got PTSB to pull they Ad. Either way the Ad got to run and hook customers.

-Rd
 
daltonr said:
Not that it matters a damn. I have a letter from ASAI telling me that they asked PTSB to pull their "Best Interest Rate" Ads, and IFSRA claim that THEY got PTSB to pull they Ad. Either way the Ad got to run and hook customers.
Click to expand...
Actually I claim credit for that one - or at least for alerting the ASAI and IFSRA to it and eventually managing them to do something about it in spite of their initial reluctance to do so!
 
Yes, I know, you had your run in with IFSRA. I remember it well. I only wrote to ASAI. I'm not a fan of IFSRA.

When I said they claimed credit I was referring to their report later that year where they claimed to monitor the media and moved to have a misleading Ad removed.

-Rd
 
Yeah - I know. Their report made it look like they were proactive in dealing with the PTSB misleading ad. PTSB claimed to offer the best demand deposit rate for €5K+ which ignored the fact that NR were offering a better rate for a lower amount (viz. €1K+). Initially IFSRA said that it was something to do with complicated CAR calculations which was simply rubbish. Then they said that because PTSB specified a particular min. balance they were within their rights to claim to offer the best rate. This meant that each bank could pick an arbitrary minimum deposit amount and all claim to offer the best demand deposit rate! Eventually they saw sense and contacted the compliance department of PTSB and the advertisements were subsequently pulled.
 
The most interesting part of that was their inability to grasp that the Northern Rock minimum deposit was LESS than the PTSB. In other words if you had enough to invest with PTSB you by definition had enough to invest with the better Northern Rock account.

I could forgive them the initial mess up in not understanding what was going on. It's worrying but there are mistakes made in all walks of life and you'd forgive them one or two in their formative years.

But to write a report claiming credit was unforgivable.

-Rd
 

I don't know if that is technically true though, while there may have been no mainstream music available legally until iTunes and its peers haven't there been indie bands and labels offering music for free since broadband appeared? Also a few major label artists were offering odds and sods like demo tracks and live tracks for free. Of course the spirit of their offering probably was promoting illegal downloads but I'd say they would get off on the technicality.
 
Will somebody please lock this thread so as to "cherish the moment". daltonR and Clubman are conversing and appear to be in agreement.
 
Where did I say that? Do you have any objective, measurable evidence to back that assertion up? Please quote examples...
 
That's one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

-Rd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register