E-toll advertising scuffle
The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa will not be ruling on complaints about SANRAL’s e-toll tariff signs
E-toll advertising scuffle
E-toll advertising scuffle
The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa will not be ruling on complaints about SANRAL’s e-toll tariff signs
So is the ASA in cahoots with SANRAL, the Government, etc? Or is this a genuine cop-out?In an e-mail sent to one complainant, an administrator for the ASA explained that this is because it does not consider road traffic signs as advertising.
“Unfortunately, we therefore have no jurisdiction in this matter,” the ASA said.
Real Men Don't Rape! [Lead SA]
Report rape and sexual abuse. You can SMS an anonymous tip-off to 32211. SMS charged at R1.
If a road sign tells you that Pretoria is 50km away when it is 80km, you can't go to ASA about it. It's not an advert, which the Advertising Standards Authority has jusrisdiction over. ASA is not some overarching body with powers over any sort of signage.Originally Posted by McT
If Sanral published these in adverts in newspapers/ on TV etc then you could take it to ASA.
I disagree. SANRAL is a company handling tolls and although it is a roadsign, it is basically a meduim displaying price for a service. Lack of full disclosure should apply as it is an advertised price for a service.
Just my POV.
*edit* It could also be argued as not being an official roadsign. Does it appear in any K52 books/notices as one?
If this is the sign,, then it does appear in the official lists. See sign 5 in row 5 of the following document http://www.arrivealive.co.za/downloa.../chart%203.pdf
Been a loooooooong time since my test, ok scratch that argument.If this is the sign,
The fees for the Huguenot Tunnel are displayed quite prominently both sides, as are Chapman's Peak, so why not in Gauteng?
The point is not that they're displayed, but that they are deceiving.
I am 13531
"Balance is the key to everything, without it we would just keep falling over."
Yep. Suddenly I've got this picture in my head of a road information sign from some sci-fi show, sixty foot tall and with hundreds of explanations on it. And a pile of rusted wrecks on the side of the road a few metres later.
I agree that the e-toll tariff structure is too complex to display on small sign boards.
However it is very deceiving if a visitor drives through Gauteng and expects to pay what they see on the boards.
There is no indictation on the signage whatsoever that alternative, punitive tariffs are in place.
I'd rather they remove the tariffs and instead publish a website URL or call center number which can provide the tariffs.
I'd rather they remove the tariffs AND the gantries... Assuming that's an option
The world would be better off if it were run by engineers.
SANRAL is an independent, statutory company registered in terms of the Companies Act. Of course it is advertising. It may be owned by the government, but it is NOT the government. It is an independent company.
So the Advertising Standards Authority assumes it has jurisdiction over churches and other juristic persons, why can't it exercise authority over SANRAL?
Sounds like the government have their hands up the ASA's puppet hole!
The forgot Category 6 and 7.
Category 6: Taxis (free)
Category 7: Ministers (kick backs)
I think those boards need a thick layer of white paint don't they?
In other words, "I'm not touching that with a 10 foot barge pole"In an e-mail sent to one complainant, an administrator for the ASA explained that this is because it does not consider road traffic signs as advertising.
“Unfortunately, we therefore have no jurisdiction in this matter,”
Just wrap my head in tinfoil and point me towards the bar.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks