On or around Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:09:23 +0000 (UTC), Simon Isaacs
<
[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:11:49 +0000 (GMT), [email protected]
>("David G. Bell") scribbled the following nonsense:
>
>>On Thursday, in article <[email protected]>
>> [email protected] "PDannyD"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:11, Doorbell [[email protected]] wrote
>>> in message <IZ%[email protected]>
>>>
>>> > I was suprised to see an advert in LRM (Land Rover Monthly) for "Exchange
>>> > Engines" (page 188 April 2006). This company has been subject to numerous
>>> > complaints to Hounslow and Surrey trading standards and "starred" in a
>>> > recent edition of BBC TV's Watch Dog.
>>>
>>> I'd guess they've paid for a set period of adverts. Unless they've done
>>> something terribly wrong then their advert wont be pulled.
>>
>>And how recent was the Watch Dog programme? There's a point at which
>>it's not practical to pull an advert.
>
>would guess on a two week lead time from proofs to print, and given
>that the April issues come out at the end of Feb....... Means the
>april issue has to be completed by very early feb at latest!
some magazines have a copy date about 2 months in advance - we advertise in
'em, so I should know. The magazines are all printed well before the
general availability date and the "March" issue is often on sale some time
in the end of February, and presumably potentially on sale for almost a
month if stocks don't run out. I wouldn't be surprised if the cut-off for
emergency ad-removal was more than a fortnight.
Also, you have to look at the risks - There would have to be clear-cut and
unarguable evidence against a company for the magazine to risk pulling the
ad - "many complaints" is not that, nor is Watchdog: I've seen the
"trial-by-television" thing in action and quite frankly, they take a good
deal more on themselves sometimes than they've any right to. There was a
case some while back of a woman who, by her testimony, had been landed in
the fuvg looking after a dog breeding enterprise, she wasn't able to fund it
and the owner had ****ed off, or somesuch, and she was doing the best she
was able. The T-b-T lot arrived with all cameras blazing and proceeded to
portray her as a criminal, trespass on private property, ignore direct and
clear requests not to enter buildings and not to film there, and so on.
Now of course, the woman could be as guilty as all get out, I don't know,
and didn't at the time. The point is, neither did the T-b-T mob - they
assumed her guilt, shouted her down and ignored any protest. If she was
guilty, there's an established procedure called the legal system by which
she should be tried...
Coming back to the point: Suppose Exchange Engines supply 30 engines a
month, and have 20 valid complaints, to which their response was "tough
tit". In that case, they're fairly obviously incompetent and should indeed
be looked into by trading standards. Suppose however they supply 350
engines per month and still have 20 complaints which they deal with
reasonably. Not right, but that doesn't make them villains - it probably
means they should improve their quality control.
But the T-b-T mob wouldn't care about the latter scenario, doesn't make good
telly.
--
Austin Shackles.
www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
