Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IRELAND’S ADVERTISING WATCHDOG has upheld six complaints recently investigated by the organisation, including those made against An Post, FreeNow, and Emerald Park.
The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland is financed by the advertising industry and promotes the highest standards of advertising, promotional marketing, and direct marketing.
It aims to ensure that all commercial marketing is “legal, decent, honest and truthful”.
In the case of An Post, a complaint was made against an online advert on its website which outlined a postage option costing €4.50, with a delivery timeframe of 2-3 working days for worldwide delivery.
A person complained that they had posted 100 letters to the Netherlands via this postal option but 20 days later, the letters had not been delivered.
The complainant said they contacted An Post and were advised that the delivery times on the website were only an indication of the postage time frame and that this was outlined in the terms and conditions on the website.
The complaint said these terms and conditions were not mentioned on the website.
The ASAI concluded that the advert was misleading.
While the ASAI noted the delivery times were estimates, it considered that the “overall impression created by the advertising was that post would be delivered within the advertised time frame”.
A complaint about a misleading FreeNow advert on the potential earnings of drivers was also upheld.
The advert featured on the side of buses, as well as on Instagram.
The Instagram ad read: “EARN UP TO €1,300 a WEEK. FREENOW Take full control of your time and your earnings. Drive your way to €1,300 a week”.
Over 30 complaints were received about this ad, the majority of which were from taxi driver who said the earning potential mentioned was misleading and not achievable.
They added that it gave a false impression that those working in the taxi industry were earning more than they were and that it would not be possible to earn this amount without working additional hours.
The complaints also noted that no reference was made to whether this €1,300 figure took additional costs into account, such as fuel and licence fees.
In 2022, around 7% of drivers on the FreeNow platform earned €1,300 a week.
FreeNow said in response that any driver using its platform is a sole trader and FreeNow is not in a position to calculate what expenses or outgoings a driver may have.
The ASAI said the “fact that only 7% had earned that amount (or more) was material information that should have been referenced in the advertisement” and that without this qualification, the advert was in breach of the code.
However, the ASAI only upheld in part complaints related to the fact that FreeNow did not make it clear that the ‘up to’ figure would have to take account driver deductions.
A complaint against a social media advert for Emerald Park was also upheld.
The ad showcased a promotional code which entitled users to a 24% discount on admissions to Emerald Park over a period of several weeks, but terms and conditions were not referenced.
Four complaints were received from people who had tried to avail of the discount but were told it was no longer available.
One complainant was told the promotion had ceased around halfway through the advertised campaign.
Emerald Park said the terms and conditions noted that the promotion may be withdrawn at any time and that it reserves the right to change the terms and conditions at any time.
The ASAI said measures should be taken to “avoid causing unnecessary disappointment for consumers” and that the advertising had not indicated there was a limited availability on the number of visitors who could avail of the discount code.
Elsewhere, a complaint was upheld against Castleblayney Credit Union for an online ad that referred to a “Members only car draw”.
A complainant said the ad was misleading because “there was no car available to those who won the draw”.
Castleblayney Credit Union said the “prize provided funds towards the cost of a new car”, a sum of €16,000.
The ASAI upheld the complaint and deemed it is misleading because the prize was a cash prize, as opposed to a car.
A complaint was also upheld in relation to a various social media ads from Intrepid Spirits.
Two of the ads referenced how a canned cocktail could help with “awkward” questions or moments over Christmas, and the complainant said it was “dangerous and inappropriate to portray alcohol as a tool for social anxiety”.
Intrepid Spirits said it was “attempting to present a familiar situation to their audience in which their consumers could relate to”.
The complaint was upheld because the main voice over referred to the situation as “awkward Christmas moments” and that the product “could help”.
The ASAI considered the adverts had portrayed an alcohol product as a way of helping with the interactions portrayed.
It also upheld a complaint that the posts did not include responsibility messaging and used people who appeared under 25 in the adverts.
Meanwhile, complaints against a Phonewatch radio advert were partly upheld.
The ad claimed a Phonewatch alarm would make a home “four times more secure” and referenced an offer that was ending soon.
Three complaints were received, with complaints being made against the “four times more secure claim” and the fact that “no timeline was given” for the ending ‘soon’ offer.
In response, Phonewatch issued CSO data on the burglary rates of homes in 2022 and compared this figure to their own alarm rates.
It also said Phonewatch runs equipment offers all year round and the offer end dates were stated on their website.
The ASAI upheld the complaint against the “four times more secure” because the evidence cited was not sufficient and could likely mislead.
However, the ASAI didn’t uphold the complaint on the “ending soon” aspect of the advert and said the ad was not “likely to induce consumers to rush to make a purchase they would otherwise not have done”.
Good, I only hope the other remains are returned as well. Plenty of people are willing to leave their remains to science for study. It seems disrespectful to keep bones stolen from a monastery.
And the good people of Kells would also like their book back yesterday.
Cart before the horse decision that reeks of Woke. The skulls should not be returned until a suitable facility is available on the island for their preservation and study.
@Don Hogan: Sounds meaningless to research further – surely science has moved on?
@Don Hogan: How is this woke? The skulls were stolen and the community in Inishbofin are “thrilled” that they are being returned and it “is deeply, deeply personal for them and you only understand that when you’re on the island”
It is NEVER too late to right wrongs nor say sorry! You’re being a bit wokey methinks!
@Paul Furey: The skulls were not stolen. They were removed from the island. Supply names of original owners.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: You know nothing about research into ancient settlers mainland Ireland and offshore islands.
@Paul Furey: Please read article carefully. The islanders do not have a suitable facility to house, preserve and study the skulls. The woke comment was directed at Trinty’s decision which however well intentioned is woken since there is as yet no place on the island for the skulls. Better that Trinity build suck a facility there before announcing their intention to return skulls.
@Paul Furey: Please read article carefully. The islanders do not have a suitable facility to house, preserve and study the skulls. The woke comment was directed at Trinity’s decision which however well intentioned is wokey since there is as yet no place on the island for the skulls. Better that Trinity build suck a facility there before announcing their intention to return skulls.
@Paul Furey: See definition of woke which fits Trinity’s actions to a tee.
@Don Hogan: Quit while you are losing.
@Don Hogan: But they don’t want to study them? They would like to bury them, why’s that a problem/ Do they have a specific scientific reason they are worth studying? My understanding is they are regular skulls. If so, I think they should be returned.
@Don Hogan: why do they need a suitable facility. You’ve seen the drawing, they were considered sacred just as they were in the corner of the monestry ruin there. Just put them back where they were as per the drawings. End of. They don’t need protection from the elements. Some things just pass through time in their own way. They’d be still sitting there had they not been removed in the first place.
No way they should have had to campaign for 10 years. Should have gone to the guards and had the responsible person in Trinity charged with possession of stolen property.
@Shane O Neill: Trinity admin is notoriously slow and not always that professional. I’ve dealt with them before and sometimes didn’t even receive acknowledgement of engagement even when I reached out to them for said acknowledgement. That said, I’ve worked in an admin dept for another third level institution in Ireland and they also were not that fast at moving things along either, might just be that sort of environment across the board.
This is a description of the event by one who was there: “down the enclosure which is practically a large graveyard, on our way we disturbed several cattle. We stumbled along & entered the church tumbling over the stones which are placed over the graves, in the corner we saw in the dim light the skulls in a recess in the wall. There must have been 40 or more, all broken, most useless but on (overhanding) them we found a dozen which were worth carrying away & only one however had the face bones.”
https://ballymaclinton.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/what-happened-on-inishbofin-in-july-1890-three-days-that-changed-the-history-of-anthropology-in-ireland-and-britain/
Is that Inishbofin in Donegal? I imagine there’s a few Inishbofins
have your say