Advertising Standards Authority ruling withdrawn
It doesn’t rain but it pours.* The Independent Review Process of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has looked into the ASA’s recent, and widely reported, ruling on Rangers International’s claim on football titles won by a liquidated club. The Review found that “it was a procedural flaw for the ASA to have relied on an extract only of a report sent to it by the advertiser”.
Further, the review process ruled that “there was also the risk of a substantial flaw of adjudication in the distinction that had been made between ‘club’ and ‘company’, especially in the light of previous ASA decisions about companies that change hands and the circumstances in which the new company could or could not trade off the reputation of the old company”.
The Chairman of the ASA, Lord Smith of Finsbury, as decided to reopen the ASA’s investigation into the case and to withdraw the published adjudication, which favoured the advertiser.* Withdrawing this adjudication does not infer that a different outcome will subsequently be reached.* To use a football analogy, it’s half time and they’re all square.
An interesting, and potentially critical part of the story, is that after the initial ASA decision was issued, the club’s web site noted that their submission to the process included information that a “panel of the London Stock Exchange” supported their claim.
The Stock Exchange subsequently appeared surprised at this assertion, so much so that the club promptly withdrew the claim from the web article.
Give it an hour before you merge it, Pudsicle
It doesn’t rain but it pours.* The Independent Review Process of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has looked into the ASA’s recent, and widely reported, ruling on Rangers International’s claim on football titles won by a liquidated club. The Review found that “it was a procedural flaw for the ASA to have relied on an extract only of a report sent to it by the advertiser”.
Further, the review process ruled that “there was also the risk of a substantial flaw of adjudication in the distinction that had been made between ‘club’ and ‘company’, especially in the light of previous ASA decisions about companies that change hands and the circumstances in which the new company could or could not trade off the reputation of the old company”.
The Chairman of the ASA, Lord Smith of Finsbury, as decided to reopen the ASA’s investigation into the case and to withdraw the published adjudication, which favoured the advertiser.* Withdrawing this adjudication does not infer that a different outcome will subsequently be reached.* To use a football analogy, it’s half time and they’re all square.
An interesting, and potentially critical part of the story, is that after the initial ASA decision was issued, the club’s web site noted that their submission to the process included information that a “panel of the London Stock Exchange” supported their claim.
The Stock Exchange subsequently appeared surprised at this assertion, so much so that the club promptly withdrew the claim from the web article.
Give it an hour before you merge it, Pudsicle
Were the same club
Ok I'm writing to the ASA
