Advertising Standards

saras_2

I am surprised that there has not been any comment from MSE today on the Advertising Standards decision today setting out concerns about a florists deal that MSE promoted.

Given the type of site this is I would have expected some kind of upfront commentary.

Coopdivi

I find it interesting that MSE sometimes receives payment for its 'blagged' deals. These negotiated offers are advertised in the email as being exclusive to MSE.

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/9/Moneysavingexpertcom-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_224694.aspx

Former_MSE_Dan

Hi both

Coopdivi - MSE usually receives payment for links that have a * next to them, blagged or not. These appear both in the email and on the site - but the * has no impact on what we say or whether we include the product. This is fully explained here: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/funding

Both - this is our statement on the ASA ruling:

“We’re truly bewildered by the ASA’s decision. We’ve repeatedly asked it what it thinks we should have done differently, and it hasn’t given us a clear answer.

“Of course, we were gutted some of our users who ordered super-cheap red roses at a discount via us from a huge flower firm were let down – we love a bit of romance.

“So as soon as Arena told us there was a problem, we kicked into action, to ensure people either got a no-quibble refund or a bigger bunch of flowers another day.

“Yet we’re at a loss as to how that means we mis-communicated the deal or conducted the deal unfairly. Arena told us it had last-minute problems - it couldn’t deliver due to a power cut and their courier going to the wrong address. Our job is to help consumers. If we’d known that when people were placing orders, of course we would have told our users to steer clear.

“We can’t be expected to foresee the unforeseeable. It’s a bit like telling an airline off for mis-advertising a flight, because on the day it’s due to take off the airport’s blocked by snow.

“We feel we did everything we could have done in this case. So we’re not going to let the ASA’s decision stop us finding the very best prices for our users.”

Slowhand

MSE_Dan wrote: »

Hi both

Coopdivi - MSE usually receives payment for links that have a * next to them, blagged or not. These appear both in the email and on the site - but the * has no impact on what we say or whether we include the product. This is fully explained here: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/funding

Both - this is our statement on the ASA ruling:

“We’re truly bewildered by the ASA’s decision. We’ve repeatedly asked it what it thinks we should have done differently, and it hasn’t given us a clear answer.

“Of course, we were gutted some of our users who ordered super-cheap red roses at a discount via us from a huge flower firm were let down – we love a bit of romance.

“So as soon as Arena told us there was a problem, we kicked into action, to ensure people either got a no-quibble refund or a bigger bunch of flowers another day.

“Yet we’re at a loss as to how that means we mis-communicated the deal or conducted the deal unfairly. Arena told us it had last-minute problems - it couldn’t deliver due to a power cut and their courier going to the wrong address. Our job is to help consumers. If we’d known that when people were placing orders, of course we would have told our users to steer clear.

“We can’t be expected to foresee the unforeseeable. It’s a bit like telling an airline off for mis-advertising a flight, because on the day it’s due to take off the airport’s blocked by snow.

“We feel we did everything we could have done in this case. So we’re not going to let the ASA’s decision stop us finding the very best prices for our users.”

MSE does not come up smelling of roses here. Arena failed to deliver and MSE should have stepped in and sorted it out, even if it was retrospectively, after all MSE were paid to blag the deal they recommended and IMHO are jointly liable. Remember MSE got paid despite the fiasco that happened.

Slowhand

Do MSE accept the ASA ruling or are they going to challenge it?

Former_MSE_Dan

Slowhand wrote: »

MSE does not come up smelling of roses here. Arena failed to deliver and MSE should have stepped in and sorted it out, even if it was retrospectively, after all MSE were paid to blag the deal they recommended and IMHO are jointly liable. Remember MSE got paid despite the fiasco that happened.

Due to the problems, MSE did not take the small payment that we would have received had the deal gone to plan.

The issue with what you are suggesting is, we did not have the user's details (emails or addresses) as they were Arena's customers. This was sorted out retrospectively by Arena (after we pushed them) by refunds or double bunches.

Short of delivering the flowers ourselves - and we don't have an infrastructure to do that, nor the customer's details, and could not be reasonably expected to do so - we do not know what else we could have done, and the ASA won't give us any views on that despite asking multiple times

Slowhand wrote: »

Do MSE accept the ASA ruling or are they going to challenge it?

We have now challenged it as far as we can (hence the 7 month delay). We are confused by it, as explained above, and don't believe there is anything we can do differently in future. So we will continue making sure the information we give about deals will be as accurate and clear as it always has been

Slowhand

MSE_Dan wrote: »

Due to the problems, MSE did not take the small payment that we would have received had the deal gone to plan.

The issue with what you are suggesting is, we did not have the user's details (emails or addresses) as they were Arena's customers. This was sorted out retrospectively by Arena (after we pushed them) by refunds or double bunches.

Short of delivering the flowers ourselves - and we don't have an infrastructure to do that, nor the customer's details, and could not be reasonably expected to do so - we do not know what else we could have done, and the ASA won't give us any views on that despite asking multiple times



We have now challenged it as far as we can (hence the 7 month delay). We are confused by it, as explained above, and don't believe there is anything we can do differently in future. So we will continue making sure the information we give about deals will be as accurate and clear as it always has been

Forgive me if I'm wrong but why are you only now (in response to this thread) telling/informing MSE users about this?

Slowhand

From memory it wasn't always sorted out retrospectively as you claim.

whitewing

I didn't order flowers but I did see the deal and the fact that it was issued via MSE would have made me more likely to go for it, and also it is probably the only way that I would have chosen that company.

Perhaps when customers order via this kind of deal, the company should have a way of identifying/reporting these customers so that they can discuss specifics with MSE.

Emails possibly wouldn't get to recipients on time and I think it is reasonable to expect that the company itself would handle that.

I can't see any reason why MSE can't have a banner on the forum or a special part of the website that gives regular updates on time-sensitive offer e.g. a Valentine Day tab, and tell consumers as part of the deal that they can check the MSE website at regular intervals from the day before Valentine's Day in case of issues. Really it is only Valentine's Day that is a unique enough situation for this, or perhaps events like concerts etc. (In fact, how do events companies cancel gigs, you may be able to learn from their procedures).

Slowhand

Oh come on now! Why is the now rejected payment being termed as small?

jamesd

Dan,

I'm puzzled by aspects of MSE's response. Specifically these things:

"we’re not going to let the ASA’s decision stop us finding the very best prices for our users"

Had MSE attempted to negotiate with Arena Flowers so that MSE would receive no payment and customers would receive a lower price for their flowers? That is what it would take for MSE to have found "the very best price". If MSE did not make that attempt, then it is my view that MSE did not in fact attempt to find the very best price for consumers in this case, or in any others where it receives payment on a negotiated deal.

Of course, I don't expect MSE to not receive payment, but I do expect MSE not to take payment and also claim to have found "the very best price" on a negotiated deal, because the two claims are mutually contradictory.

The ASA opinion contains this in the response part:

"MSE also asserted that they were not the promoter of the offer and therefore not accountable for its administration. They highlighted that the offer had been fulfilled by Arena, entirely in their own name and not as an agent or representative or MSE."

Please confirm:

1. that MSE recognises that in the case of products regulated by the FCA and subject to appeal to the FOS, where MSE receives payment or other consideration, MSE is an "introducer" and subject to FCA regulation and requirements for introducers and financial promotions.

2. That MSE accepts that in the case of FCA regulated products, making the claim "the very best price" in a mention of a negotiated deal while receiving payment would be a misleading financial promotion subject to potential FCA action, because MSE could instead have negotiated to receive no payment and a lower and hence better price for consumers.


Moving on beyond the FCA regulated product case:

In the case of this specific non-financial offer, it baffles me how MSE can consider that it was not a promoter. It provided publicity for a deal it negotiated, received payment for it and a vendor did the administration and shipping. That's pretty much what any other promoter would want and would be paid for doing.

What can set MSE apart is not making decisions based on financial reward to MSE. That would be entirely consistent with MSE's editorial stance, that whether consideration is received or not will not affect the decision about which vendors to mention. But, it does not change the simple fact that MSE is acting as a promoter of those products, whether it is being paid to promote them or not.

If I mention a product positively in a post, I recognise that I am in fact promoting that product by making favourable comments about it. Even though I receive no remuneration for doing so. MSE should recognise the same with regards to its editorials.

MSE_Dan wrote: »

Short of delivering the flowers ourselves - and we don't have an infrastructure to do that, nor the customer's details, and could not be reasonably expected to do so - we do not know what else we could have done, and the ASA won't give us any views on that despite asking multiple times

The ASA told MSE this in its decision:

"We noted that MSE had chosen to post information alerting their users to the fact some deliveries would not arrive on time on the morning of 14 February, but considered it was unlikely that consumers who had taken advantage of the offer would visit the site and see the update. We therefore considered it was conceivable that a MSE user who had taken advantage of the offer could have not read the e-mail from Arena until the afternoon or evening of 14 February when it was too late to locate a replacement bouquet, and then, if they had decided to wait until the 15 February, they might not have received their bouquet on that date either. We therefore considered that the promotion had not been administered fairly and was in breach of the Code."

The ASA clearly believes that MSE failed to minimise the chance that a person not receiving an order where time was clearly of the essence would be able to arrange a replacement in time and that MSE should have arranged to have suitable communication methods in place to do so.

It also seems clear how MSE could avoid acquiring more upheld ASA complaints against it. Not using negotiated deals or acting as it has suggested on communications. It was clearly the negotiated aspect of the deal that it considered to make MSE jointly responsible.