Advertising Standards

Former_MSE_Dan

Hi

Slowhand - because it would have been small

Jamesd - I can confirm we take any responsibilities we have with regards to FCA regulation seriously, and always comply with all things we are required to comply with.

With regard to the ASA's suggested remedy, we do not believe datamining users where there is no need to is something that should be encouraged, and were quite surprised that that was the only suggestion they came up with - so pushed for more. All customers were contacted by Arena, and we published a news story and a forum response.

Dan

jamesd

Dan, I don't see a requirement for data mining MSE users. This part of their release appears to contain the basis for how action could have been taken that would have met their expectations:

"MSE acknowledged that they had posted an update on their website at 11.15 am on 14 February, once Arena informed them at 8.39 am that some bouquets would not be delivered on time, and that they had been involved in drafting an e-mail sent from Arena to those MSE users affected by the delivery problems."

MSE could instead have worked with Arena to say that Arena should try to telephone or text customers who would not receive a delivery, so that they would have a chance to try same day shopping on the morning and afternoon of the 14th when there was still time to get something on the correct day.

I'm assuming that Arena didn't try that or that the ASA wasn't told if they had.

So one potential action for MSE for deals where time is of the essence because of the nature of the event might be to agree with the vendor that phone contact will be attempted at the earliest opportunity.

jacques_chirac

MSE_Dan wrote: »

Hi

Slowhand - because it would have been small

Can I ask what you term as 'small' please? The site is quite open in the fact that it receives referral fees (although a good number of users do appear to miss this fact), but I am not aware of how much this fee would amount to. Small to a multi million pound business such as MSE may not be small to us 'ickle consumers, or indeed to a charity?

reason2

i think people are being unecessarily harsh to the MSE guys here, and i include the ASA in that. People do love to complain yet seem completely incapable of acknowledging that sometimes at very short notice the unforseeable happens whihc is unpreventable and leaves limited options.

I can see no wrong in how MSE acted all i can see is a minority enjoying the complaining culture.

this isnt a regular MSE problem its once in a blue moon - they have probably made less mistakes since their creation that you have individually in a year (otherwise why even be here!)

give them a break you bunch of whingers

Slowhand

reason2 wrote: »

i think people are being unecessarily harsh to the MSE guys here, and i include the ASA in that. People do love to complain yet seem completely incapable of acknowledging that sometimes at very short notice the unforseeable happens whihc is unpreventable and leaves limited options.

I can see no wrong in how MSE acted all i can see is a minority enjoying the complaining culture.

this isnt a regular MSE problem its once in a blue moon - they have probably made less mistakes since their creation that you have individually in a year (otherwise why even be here!)

give them a break you bunch of whingers

Crown Currency was recommended by MSE.

Slowhand

MSE_Dan wrote: »

Hi

Slowhand - because it would have been small

Jamesd - I can confirm we take any responsibilities we have with regards to FCA regulation seriously, and always comply with all things we are required to comply with.

With regard to the ASA's suggested remedy, we do not believe datamining users where there is no need to is something that should be encouraged, and were quite surprised that that was the only suggestion they came up with - so pushed for more. All customers were contacted by Arena, and we published a news story and a forum response.

Dan

First it was a payment, then it was a small payment which MSE didn't accept...spin perhaps? Is it soon going to be a very small payment that MSE didn't accept but donated an equivalent or larger amount to puppies?

jamesd

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Can I ask what you term as 'small' please?

We don't really need to know the exact amount. Even getting all of the sale price would be far, far less valuable than MSE's editorial independence stance and reputation. The MSE people are well aware of both how valuable that reputation is and how fragile it is if they were to compromise it. It's just not going to happen except by a deliberate change of policy and note that Martin has terms specifically covering this in the sale agreement he made.

The MSE people are good guys, not perfect, and not meeting the standards the ASA expected in this case, but still good guys.

What I'm doing here is more man in the middle trying to explain what the ASA was after and what MSE could have done, because I really prefer not to see MSE getting negative ASA decisions and do see some things that could have been done that would have avoided the negative decision in this case.

Ultimately it appears that the failure that prompted the ASA decision was that of the vendor not to try phone/text contact but to rely on email. And that's something that we can reasonably expect from vendors selling time-critical items because they and we know that sometimes things go wrong and there usually is time to pick up the pieces if people are told soon enough.

For a more sophisticated vendor another route might be email followed by phone followup just to those who haven't read the email an hour or two later. This can be done with web bugs in the email that aren't perfect but would reduce the number of calls needed. Or can be done by providing an offer of redress that can be clicked on from the email that would confirm that some people do know, again reducing the call count.

So, things that can be done and weren't done. MSE really not the primarily responsible party but roped in because it was a negotiated deal. But still something that MSE can check on and agree in the future that would reduce the chance of MSE customers (because it was negotiated) and users being disappointed.

whitewing

I think a text or phonecall has more potential to be picked up by the person the flowers were meant for though ...

I can just imagine picking up the phone on Valentines Day to a lady who needs to speak urgently to my husband, and who can't tell me what it's about...

Slowhand

Slowhand wrote: »

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

Was that question answered?

Sparhawke

Sounds to me that someone was annoyed (could use a much stronger word here) that they didn't get in on the deal due to limited numbers so went off looking for issues that didn't exist.

Valentines Day as we all know is a boon for all flower sellers/restaurants/suppliers but it only takes one step for that chain to break down and you have chaos.

MSE might advertise 500 deals for 500 people but they are not liable for unforeseen circumstances or the ire of ONE misanthropic keyboard warrior.