Task 11: Regulatory Body: How Is The ASA Funded?
Task 11: Regulatory Body: How Is The ASA Funded?
Task 11: Regulatory Body: How Is The ASA Funded?
Collected by the Advertising Standards Board of Finance (Asbof) and the Broadcast
Advertising Standards Board of Finance (Basbof), the 0.1% levy on the cost of
buying advertising space and the 0.2% levy on some direct mail ensures the ASA is
adequately funded to keep UK advertising standards high. We also receive a small
income from charging for some seminars and premium industry advice services.
We receive no Government funding and therefore our work is free to the tax payer.
The levy system means the ASA has the necessary resources to handle more than
30,000 complaints each year and independently check thousands of ads every year.
In addition, the funding supports CAPs Copy Advice service which provides pre-
publication advice to advertisers, agencies and the media.
The separate funding mechanism ensures that the ASA does not know which
advertisers choose to fund the system or the amount they contribute.
The levy is the only part of the system that is voluntary. Advertisers can choose to
pay the levy, but they cannot choose to comply with the Advertising Codes or the
ASAs rulings. https://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Funding.aspx
Tesco
Advertisement
A national press ad for Tesco, seen in October 2015, was headlined Never pay
more for your branded shop. Text below stated, If its cheaper at Asda, Morrisons or
Sainsburys, well take the money off your bill at the till. It included an image of a
character associated with a flour brand holding an icon that carried the text Brand
Guarantee.
Small print included Min. basket of 10 different products, including 1 comparable
branded product. Total price of branded grocery shop compared with Asda,
Morrisons and Sainsburys and if cheaper elsewhere the difference will be taken off
your bill .
Issue
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, who believed the ad did not make the minimum
purchase restriction sufficiently clear, challenged whether the claim Never pay more
for your branded shop was misleading.
Response
Tesco Stores Ltd believed the ad communicated the scheme clearly to consumers
and was consistent with the industrys wider approach to price match advertising.
They understood consumers were familiar with how price match schemes worked
and that a minimum spend requirement generally applied. They believed the ad
made clear that a branded shop was made up of multiple products, which was
something consumers were also already familiar with. Tesco considered the
combination of the text and the Brand Guarantee logo communicated to consumers
that the ad related to a price match scheme for branded products in which prices
were matched against ASDA, Morrisons and Sainsburys, and that it worked by
taking money off at the till if the branded shop cost more at Tesco.
Tesco said that of the conditions set out in the small print the first was the minimum
purchase requirement, and that was communicated in a context in which, as above,
it was clear that the scheme applied to the shop as a whole. The first part of the
small print also made clear what qualified as a branded shop and informed
consumers where they could find further information. Tesco accepted that the
minimum purchase requirement was a condition that should be brought to
consumers attention, however, they believed it was sufficient to do so in small print,
because it was not so significant as to contradict the headline claim (but instead
clarified the nature of a branded shop). They also said the condition was of no
more importance than those such as geographical restrictions or maximum refunds,
which were typically also in small print. They said price match schemes were usually
aimed at shops that included multiple items and that their data showed the average
Brand Guarantee shop contained 24.4 items, whereas the minimum number to
qualify for the match was ten. Tesco had taken advice from the CAP Copy Advice
team, who believed the ad was likely to be acceptable in relation to the minimum
purchase requirement. https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2016/3/Tesco-
Stores-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_316872.aspx#.WG-XSFOLSUk
Bernardos
The ASA received 840 complaints about this Barnardos ad campaign, which was
designed to raise awareness of domestic child abuse. The TV campaign featured
repeated scenes of violence and drug-taking, which many viewers found upsetting
and not suitable for broadcast at times when children were likely to be watching. We
did not doubt the distress or offence described by many of the complainants.
However, we considered the ads were appropriately scheduled and their aim justified
the use of strong imagery.