Vodacom's been having it

[Syndyre]

There is an obvious flaw in your argument: consumers do not have the same advertising budget with which to express themselves freely, which means that consumers are not afforded "the same freedom to express their views openly".

They may not have the same advertising budget but the ultimate aim of any advertising is to get people to buy their product. If a company somehow insults me I'm unlikely to rush out and spend money on their product.

Personally I think that ASASA does a great job - most of the time, but that's just my opinion.I agree that comparative|competitive advertising should be allowed in SA.

I agree they do a good job generally fulfilling their mandate, whether the job needs to be done is another question. As long as everything said in advertising is true I don't have a problem with it.

 

[War_Lord]

Hahaha, I bet Nils van Heerden and Wendi Steenkamp must be the life of the party!

 

[Tux]

The law does not exist to restrict emotional pain. It exists to uphold individual rights. Rights that can only be infringed upon through the use of coercion.

That includes the right, by those two anal retentive citizens, to complain about something that they don't like. Freedom of speech works both ways.

 

[chopsky]

There is an obvious flaw in your argument: consumers do not have the same advertising budget with which to express themselves freely, which means that consumers are not afforded "the same freedom to express their views openly".

Syndyre pretty much summed up the argument. If the consumers did not agree, they would not purchase/services the goods advertised by that company and the company would suffer and/or go out of business. People misunderstand that in a free market (i.e. no government intervention), it is the consumers who hold the power and decide the success of a business. If the consumers choose not to consume, there is no business. This is why advertising exists. To try entice the consumer to buy their goods. This is obviously not the case when it comes to government protected monopolies such as Telkom, Eskom etc. It can only apply to a free market where choice exists.

Personally I think that ASASA does a great job - most of the time, but that's just my opinion.I agree that comparative|competitive advertising should be allowed in SA.

Being good at what you do is not grounds for you doing it in the first place.

 

[Syndyre]

That includes the right, by those two anal retentive citizens, to complain about something that they don't like. Freedom of speech works both ways.

They have the right to complain. What they don't, or shouldn't have anyway, is the right to enforce their complaints and views on others which is what they attempted to do.

 

[Tux]

They have the right to complain. What they don't, or shouldn't have anyway, is the right to enforce their complaints and views on others which is what they attempted to do.

They complained, ASA told them where to shove it. Life goes on.

Which would you rather have? A society that protects the rights of failed abortions like that, or not having the right to complain about things at all?

 

[chopsky]

That includes the right, by those two anal retentive citizens, to complain about something that they don't like. Freedom of speech works both ways.

Yep, they can complain all they like about it and should be free publicize their views wherever they want. They can't however use the law to forcefully prohibit the company from saying what it wants. It is Freedom of SPEECH. Not freedom to use force.

Edit: Sorry, pretty much just repeated what Syndyre just said.

 

[chopsky]

They complained, ASA told them where to shove it. Life goes on.

Which would you rather have? A society that protects the rights of failed abortions like that, or not having the right to complain about things at all?

I'd rather have a country that supports the rights of each and every individual to say whatever he/she wants. Failed abortion or not. Just because some people may say stupid things, does not mean a law should be in place to restrict their right to say it. Censorship in any shape or form is wrong. Freedom of speech must either exist as an absolute, or it will eventually disappear entirely.

 

[Tux]

Failed abortion or not.

That was me exercising my right to free speech, which in turn will probably lead to one of the mods exercising their right to delete posts that they find offensive

 

[chopsky]

That was me exercising my right to free speech, which in turn will probably lead to one of the mods exercising their right to delete posts that they find offensive

Yeh, and that is their right (as you stated) since they own the forum

 

[Sapphiron]

These advertisements got Nils van Heerden and Wendi Steenkamp hot under collar for what they call "commercial reinforcement of stereotypical perceptions of African countries as being of third world status".

You don't need stereotypes to have that perception?

* Points at our northern neighbour

 

[chopsky]

You don't need stereotypes to have that perception?

* Points at our northern neighbour

Yeh, those (stereotypical) perceptions exist because it's the truth.

 

[DJ...]

Hypothetical:

Chopsky owns "I am a chop" business. Chopsky sells lamb chops.

Gru owns: "I hate chops" business - Chopsky's competitor who sells lamb cutlets.

Gru takes out an advertising campaign falsely stating that "I am a Chop" is selling meat laced with LSD to get his clients hooked on his product. This does not sit well with the consumers who boycott all "I am a Chop" lamb chops and effectively put Chopsky out of business before he can retort with his planned anti-"I hate Chops" campaign.

Does this logic not ever hit home with you Chopsky? We had this debate in a previous thread. Your idealistic visions of a completely free world economy are not viable. Never have been, and never will be. These rules and regulations are not only there to protect the consumer from dialling premium rate subscription services at R50/min and R1000 per week, but also to protect businesses from each other - hence why comparative advertising has been slow on the uptake from a regulatory perspective as it entails a massive grey area as to what is allowed and what isnt.


The above examples might seem trivial, but the principles are the same regardless of the size of a business.

 

[Bismuth]

Nils van Heerden and Wendi Steenkamp need to get out more.

I support the ASA in what they do, but I am not so sure about the fact that it only takes ONE complaint to get action.... although, I suppose only one person needs to report a crime to hopefully get some police action on it.

B

 

[Syndyre]

Hypothetical:

Chopsky owns "I am a chop" business. Chopsky sells lamb chops.

Gru owns: "I hate chops" business - Chopsky's competitor who sells lamb cutlets.

Gru takes out an advertising campaign falsely stating that "I am a Chop" is selling meat laced with LSD to get his clients hooked on his product. This does not sit well with the consumers who boycott all "I am a Chop" lamb chops and effectively put Chopsky out of business before he can retort with his planned anti-"I hate Chops" campaign.

Chopsky could then sue Gru for damages unless Gru could prove the meat really was laced with LSD. Even the ASA could only act after the ad was published so whether they take action or Chopsky takes action the damage has still been done.

 

[DJ...]

Chopsky could then sue Gru for damages unless Gru could prove the meat really was laced with LSD. Even the ASA could only act after the ad was published so whether they take action or Chopsky takes action the damage has still been done.

The jurisdiction is still with ASA. Therefore there needs to be rules and regulations. Even if it goes outside of their jurisdiction, then there must still be rules and regulations governing what can and cannot be stated in an ad.

And you must remember that in the perfect, idealistic free market which Chopsky is after (as stated in other threads), rules and regulations should be banished in favour of true market forces, whereby supply and demand determine right from wrong. In this case, there wouldnt be any rules to enforce in the first place.

I have an issue with people continually posting damning comments about companies and regulations based on pure speculation and maybe a book or two that they read back in their drug induced days of peace and equality for all. Idealistic scenarios are not realistic. Whilst Chopsky and a few others have every right to post their opinions about what should and shouldnt be happening, they should at least try to base their opinions on real world possibilities and not fantasy ideologies.

Stating things along the lines of "I dont believe ASASA should exist in the first place" highlights a poor understanding of how businesses operate in the first place and an even poorer understanding of competitive markets, where corporate espionage is a reality, not a Hollywood script. Cut-throat competitive consumer markets require regulation to protect both consumers and companies. Regulation within reason though...

 

[DJ...]

Chopsky could then sue Gru for damages unless Gru could prove the meat really was laced with LSD. Even the ASA could only act after the ad was published so whether they take action or Chopsky takes action the damage has still been done.

Let me ask you one other thing:

How comfortable do you think any broadcaster would be in allowing an advert of this nature to be broadcast on their channel(s)? I dont think they would allow it in the first place if they suspected it to be false.

Now remove ASASA regulations. Now how comfortable would they be in doing so?

Just use this logic to think about premium rate scams. If companies werent forced to highlight their charges and subscription terms, along woth STOP instructions, how comfortable would a broadcaster be to put their own client base at risk of dodgy practices? Now remove the regulations and it becomes fair game, because anyone can and will do it. Sure they could set their own standards individually and market them to consumers as a value-add, but different rules and regulations for different broadcasters opens up a whole new can of worms, and the rules dont necessarily have to be in the best interests of the consumer or the company for that matter.

 

[Debbie]

Nils van Heerden and Wendi Steenkamp, GET A LIFE for goodness sake!!!!!!

If we cannot laugh at ourselves we are truly doomed!

+1

 

[Strobemeister]

I laugh at this ad every time I see it, it's great and I agree with the above sentiments. Strangely, I'm with MTN,and this great ad hasen't prompted me to hang up on MTN and go Vodacom. I sometimes wonder how come these companies spend so much on ads, must be a tax break in there or something

 

[AirWolf]

I like the ad too. Those whiners might have been [previous] members of this forum.

With regards to the debate over the ASASA - a "free" market economy seems great in theory, but is definitely open to abuse in reality without certain regulations.