E-toll advertising scuffle

jes

jes

MyBroadband Alumnus
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
11,992
Reaction score
123
E-toll advertising scuffle

The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa will not be ruling on complaints about SANRAL’s e-toll tariff signs
 
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.
Click to expand...

So is the ASA in cahoots with SANRAL, the Government, etc? Or is this a genuine cop-out?
 
McT said:
So is the ASA in cahoots with SANRAL, the Government, etc? Or is this a genuine cop-out?
Click to expand...

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.

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?
 
The fees for the Huguenot Tunnel are displayed quite prominently both sides, as are Chapman's Peak, so why not in Gauteng?
 
chrisc4290 said:
The fees for the Huguenot Tunnel are displayed quite prominently both sides, as are Chapman's Peak, so why not in Gauteng?
Click to expand...

The point is not that they're displayed, but that they are deceiving.
 
Madman88 said:
The point is not that they're displayed, but that they are deceiving.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bruce_the_loon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
Garyvdh said:
Category 1: E-tag user who is registered with the Agency
Category 2: E-tag user who is not registered with the Agency
Category 3: VLN [vehicle license number] user who is registered with the Agency
Category 4: Alternate user
Category 5: Day-pass user
Click to expand...

The forgot Category 6 and 7.

Category 6: Taxis (free)
Category 7: Ministers (kick backs)
 
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,”
Click to expand...

In other words, "I'm not touching that with a 10 foot barge pole"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X