ASA Adjudications

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44937.htm

Royal Mail Group Ltd
148 Old Street
London
EC1V 9HQ
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 3 September 2008
Media: Direct mail
Sector: Business
Agency: Proximity London





Ad
A direct mailing, from Royal Mail, was delivered in a jiffy bag with the recipient's name printed on the front in a handwritten style and postage stamps attached; there were no markings on the jiffy bag to identify the sender. Inside the jiffy bag was a hairbrush, a toothbrush, a hair-band, a "Rocky Horror Picture Show" CD and a Royal Mail booklet entitled "7 Rules to create long-term relationships". The mailing also contained a letter printed in a hand-written style; text stated "Dear XXXX, There's no other way to do this - we're definitely over, so here are some of your things that I thought you might want back. I found all those letters you sent me, too. Remember? You used to write to me all the time and it made me feel so special. Why did you stop? Anyway, it's too late now. I'm also sending you a magazine I found, which might help you see how it all went so wrong. It's from Royal Mail and it talks a lot about how to communicate in relationships in a language you might finally understand. You should think about giving their long-term-relationship counsellors a call - their number is 0870 XXX XXXX. Get in contact with them before you lose another relationship like ours. Goodbye. Your ex-customer, James".

Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the mailing was likely to cause offence.

2. The ASA challenged whether the envelope made clear that it contained marketing material.

The CAP Code: 5.1;22.1;5.2

Response
1. Royal Mail Group (RMG) said they understood the mailing might have caused offence to the complainant but they believed that the marketing material contained within was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to the marketing professionals to whom it was sent. They said the mailing was sent only to high level senior marketing professionals at their place of work and was not sent to any member of the public. They believed that the fact there had been only one complaint from a total of 5,000 recipients gave a strong indication that the mailing was not seen as offensive.

RMG said the intention of the campaign was to highlight to companies the importance of maintaining a good level of communication with their customers. They said the letter was drafted in a handwritten style as an example of a customer who had become unhappy with the level of communication from a fictional company. They asserted that, while the tone of the letter was intended to portray an emotional response, it was drafted and worded in a light hearted manner. They argued that there was nothing within the letter, or the mailing as a whole, that would cause any offence to the audience to which it was directed.

RMG said, although they believed it would not cause offence, as a result of the complaint they had taken the decision not to repeat the campaign.

2. RMG said the jiffy bag sent to companies would have stated the name and job title of the recipient on the front. They believed the inclusion of the job title of the recipient would have immediately given an indication that the mailing was not of a personal nature. They asserted that, although the name and address on the jiffy bag were in a hand-written style, it was clearly printed by a machine rather than in actual handwritten form. RMG believed that the overall presentation of the direct mailing made it obvious to those people to whom it was sent that it was a marketing communication; however, they said they would take care in future campaigns to ensure that mailings were clearer as to their intended purpose.

Assessment
The ASA welcomed RMGs decision not to use the mailing again.

1. Not upheld
We noted the mailing was sent only to marketing professionals at their place of work and included a handwritten letter, a booklet and some personal items. We considered that, although it was produced to resemble a handwritten note, it was clear the letter had been machine printed. We also considered that it would be clear from the details of the letter, especially to the marketing professionals to whom it was sent, that it was not from a genuine person and formed part of an advertising campaign about customer relationships. We considered that that impression would be further clarified by the booklet entitled "7 Rules to create long-term relationships". We considered that, although some recipients might find the personal items and references to a failed relationship distasteful, there was nothing explicit in the mailing and it was likely to be seen as a light-hearted reference to the breakdown of a relationship. We considered that there was nothing in the letter or other contents of the mailing that were likely to cause serious or widespread offence to most recipients.

On this point, we investigated the mailing under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld
We noted the envelope did not include any markings other than a printed name and address in a handwritten style and postage stamps. We noted the CAP Help Note on Claims on Envelopes stated "Direct marketers who use handwritten text, handwritten-style printed text, postage stamps or other devices or forms of presentation that consumers often associate with social correspondence should ensure that envelopes contain an indication that the content is commercial correspondence". Because the jiffy bag did not contain any indication that it contained marketing material, we concluded that the mailing breached the Code.

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers).

Action
The mailing must not appear again in its current form. We told RMG to ensure future mailings made clear they contained marketing material. We advised them to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising in future.

[piranha]

I fail to see how this is a good use of RM cash, WTF is the point?

Well done to the marketing professional who complained

[Broxi51]

I fail to see how this is a good use of RM cash, WTF is the point?

Well done to the marketing professional who complained

It must be bad marketing if it includes a magazine from RM about relationships.
Surely if couples were to take an interest in a relationship the RM way then bullying & intimidation
would be wide spread across the UK. Children in said relationships would be frightened and need
counselling.
Partner in relationship would tell other partner of their love for them and then constantly
add more housework to them whilst giving them less housekeeping allowance.
Partner would constantly quiz other partner over how little they did and surely they
could pick up some of neighbours housework on quiet days so that they were working
their allotted hours.
Thank god it is for businesses and not personal

[k979aaa]

I fail to see how this is a good use of RM cash, WTF is the point?

Well done to the marketing professional who complained

It must be bad marketing if it includes a magazine from RM about relationships.
Surely if couples were to take an interest in a relationship the RM way then bullying & intimidation
would be wide spread across the UK. Children in said relationships would be frightened and need
counselling.
Partner in relationship would tell other partner of their love for them and then constantly
add more housework to them whilst giving them less housekeeping allowance.
Partner would constantly quiz other partner over how little they did and surely they
could pick up some of neighbours housework on quiet days so that they were working
their allotted hours.
Thank god it is for businesses and not personal

With us it's personal (old ad campaign) :cfo & :lfo