Eight fold price increase only ‘a little more’

they just do it again and again and again - losing count of the number of successful ASA complaints against telkom and the mobiles (and as opposed to the successful complaints to ICASA :rolleyes:)
 
dominic said:
they just do it again and again and again - losing count of the number of successful ASA complaints against telkom and the mobiles (and as opposed to the successful complaints to ICASA :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...
Agreed...and another article coming about Vodacom just for you :D

There are obviously far better ways to address this issue, like having to publish an apology – designed by the ASA - in exactly the same publication with the same duration/size etc as the actual campaign paid for by the guilty company.

Having said that at least we see consumer complaints being addressed by the ASA in a timely manner and rulings being published on their website for all to see. This is a few steps ahead of ICASA where we see very little progress…
 
With no penalty it's a joke. The corporations can blatantly lie or mislead the public and then blame a 'printing error'. No-one's looking out for our (the consumer's) back.
 
Peer Iuel lodged a consumer complaint against MTN with the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) about the company’s claims that, “Using your cellphone abroad costs a little more than it does from home”.

Mr. Iuel submitted that the advertisement is misleading as his bill went from a monthly average of R1 000 to R8 775.24 for the month of June despite the volume of calls decreasing significantly.
Click to expand...
While it is great that ASASA ruled in favour of the complainant and told MTN how naughty it was, a better ruling, would have been to require that MTN pays for the publication of a public apology [as previously mentioned by rpm], and that such an apology should mention that it is actually cheaper to use a native-to-foreign-country pre-paid SIM card when travelling abroad & making & receiving calls...
 
If blatant 'printing errors' or misfactual statements requiring retraction, it should be a simple case of a FINE. Don't know why all needs to get complicated, it's really simple. Let the corporations know that they should check the darn print samples before they let it go to press. The onus is on them, they need to take full responsibility for it. Not be able to back out later with this BS. I'm sure in the UK there are much stricter measures in place. But then they have a great history of consumer protection in place... cosumer organisations / watchdogs... while we're in the Dirty South where (if you have the $$$) can get away with it... possible exaggeration, but I'm really not sure... my cynicism prevails.
 
In a fair world MTN should have paid the 8k bill as well
 
fusion01 said:
If blatant 'printing errors' or misfactual statements requiring retraction, it should be a simple case of a FINE. Don't know why all needs to get complicated, it's really simple. Let the corporations know that they should check the darn print samples before they let it go to press. The onus is on them, they need to take full responsibility for it. Not be able to back out later with this BS. I'm sure in the UK there are much stricter measures in place. But then they have a great history of consumer protection in place... cosumer organisations / watchdogs... while we're in the Dirty South where (if you have the $$$) can get away with it... possible exaggeration, but I'm really not sure... my cynicism prevails.
Click to expand...
ASASA rulings are not supposed to be just about slapping the offender on the wrist and saying naughty naughty %illegal_corporal_punishment%, the problem is misleading consumers by putting out false information, and the way to rectify this, and AFAIK it is provided for in ASASA.org.za's organizational constitution, is for the offender to pay for a public apology and providing the correct information such that consumers that were mislead, are provided with the correct info...a fine is simply not sufficient.
 
Misleading is putting it nicely.
It amounts to blatant lies with intent to generate revenue, nothing less.

Printing error? If that is the case who was the printing company that made such a grave error and conjured up the words that something was free, when it in fact was not.
Who proof read the article at MTN?

Utter nonsense, and purposefully misleading consumers requires punitive action.

Naughty MTN, don't do it again,,,,,,,, till next time.
 
I don't know about all this complaining. I've always taken every advertisement with a pinch of salt and then some with a lot more (and Telkom's stuff with the ocean).

When you think about it most advertisements would be lies. Well I guess you are born with logic or without it. I pity those without it. It's tough out there. Advertisements is paid for and it's every company's license to lie.
 
Tanarri said:
I don't know about all this complaining. I've always taken every advertisement with a pinch of salt and then some with a lot more (and Telkom's stuff with the ocean).

When you think about it most advertisements would be lies. Well I guess you are born with logic or without it. I pity those without it. It's tough out there. Advertisements is paid for and it's every company's license to lie.
Click to expand...

Some ads stretch the truth a bit while others just go to far. If it seems to good to be true it usually is;) But the ASA is our friend to help us root out the fiction from the facts:)
 
I got hammered by MTN some years ago while roaming - R 97 for a 1 second call. They of course claimed to know nothing about it, and would "investigate". Obviously those results are "imminent", and I've since moved on to vodacom...............
 
they will find a way a way to make you pay

ps. read the fine print on the fine print
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X