It’s time for advertising standard bodies to grow a pair
Are you tired of being bombarded with adverts for services you don’t require? If you answer yes to this question you’re probably among the millions of television watchers, newspaper readers and cell phone owners at the mercy of product providers’ relentle
The companies using these stealth marketing tactics rely on the period between someone inadvertently signing up for their service and realising they’ve done so to ring in the profit. It could take between two and six weeks before the purchaser is aware of the charge on their cellular phone bill, with some paying for (and receiving) services for months before realising it.
How many bouncing balls in the window?
But don’t take our word for it. Let’s look at a couple of examples. The first campaign is courtesy of a Canadian registered company called Mobirok. They’ve been using an innovative “How many bouncing balls in the window?” online marketing campaign. Any internet user who clicks on their banner is re-directed to a website where they are encouraged to participate in an IQ (intelligence) test. Once the test is complete, consumers have the opportunity to supply their mobile number so that Mobirok can SMS the test result to them. But here’s the catch.
The small-print terms & conditions reveal the true cost of requesting your test score. “This is a subscription service with daily IQ improving facts sent to your cell. There is a R10 joining fee and a charge of R5 per daily messages received.” An unsuspecting user could easily complete the IQ test and subsequent request for mobile number without batting an eyelid. Just by innocently taking part in an online ‘game’ this consumer adds R160/month to their cell phone bill!
Of course the content provider will admit no wrongdoing. They’ve advertised the terms and conditions and even provided details on how to cancel the service should you no longer want to receive it. You simply SMS the word “STOP” to #####. The argument that potential clients are apprised of the charges falls flat for a number of reasons. We accept that the line “joining fee R10, subscription service R5/day” is displayed somewhere on the computer screen at all times, but it doesn’t appear in areas a potential consumer would focus on while completing the IQ test. And while they encourage users to click on a link to their terms and conditions before sending their mobile number, very few would take the time to read the 2 781 word document.
Scratch and win!
The second example is even more unscrupulous. Over the last few weeks we’ve received a number of ‘scratch to win’ cards with our daily newspaper. They all play to a similar theme. You’re invited to scratch the covering from three blocks. If you match three symbols you’re a winner and you have to SMS a certain code to the service provider to claim your prize. You can imagine the unsuspecting competition winner rushing to comply with the rules the minute they scratch a winning line. The problem is that every ticket is a winner. “Winners of an award must SMS the code XYZ to the PSMS number listed on the front. This will subscribe you to the Star Promotions Club…” Ah – so it’s another subscription service!
These competitions and online gimmicks are thinly veiled hoaxes to get consumers to commit to an expensive mobile content contract! On closer inspection you’ll realise that the promised ‘prize’ could be a silly jingle, ring-tone or R20 airtime voucher. Your part of the bargain is to commit to pay for continued content on a subscription basis. The prizes differ – the marketing gimmicks differ – but if you respond to these competitions there is one guarantee. You’ll receive a trinket prize and a massive debit on your mobile phone account until you opt out! The examples we’ve seen vary from R120 per month to R14 every two days!
Who is protecting the consumers?
Spend some time researching these mobile marketers and you’ll discover they mostly claim compliance with the South African Wireless Application Service Providers’ Association (WASPA) Code of Conduct. We haven’t read the code, but given the examples we’ve discussed in today’s article we must question its content, the marketers understanding of the content, or the association’s ability to monitor and enforce compliance. It’s quite possible that WASPA will find little wrong with the above examples, because both include detail of the subscription service, price and opt-out process. Even so, WASPA (at http://www.waspa.org.za/) is probably the best channel for complaints about mobile content providers.
Where else can the consumer turn? South Africa has a number of bodies to combat abuse in the advertising domain. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission SA (BCCSA) handles complaints about adverts distributed via conventional media channels, such as television and radio. If they feel an advert contravenes the code of conduct they will instruct the advertiser to refrain from re-broadcasting it. But this won’t help in either of the above cases. So the next stop is the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA). Problem is they don’t have much clout. The ASA is “an independent body set up and paid for by the marketing communications industry to regulate advertising in the public interest through a system of self-regulation!” In other words – they can encourage their members and affiliates to comply with the requirements of the Code of Advertising Practice – but they cannot do much about the rest.
As things stand you’re best left with the age old mantra: “buyer beware!” And remember, you might be making a purchase even when it appears you’re entering a competition!
Editor’s thoughts:
Although mobile networks are great for collecting money, there’s simply too much waste in the system. And the system is wide open to abuse. Do you think long-term contracts requiring regular monthly or daily charges should be concluded by way of SMS/cell phone? Add your comment below, or send it to gareth@fanews.co.za
