| |
G4EBT > DABRAD 13.12.05 18:42l 136 Lines 5364 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : EE1571G4EBT
Read: DK5RAS GUEST
Subj: ASA uphold DAB complaint
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<VE2RXY<W4JAX<GB7FCR
Sent: 051213/1638Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:17190 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:EE1571G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : DABRAD@WW
Interesting facts that nobody cares about, #1:
The Advertising Standards Authority regulates advertising in the UK, and
investigates and gives adjudications on complaints. I know it's a bit sad
and nerdy, but I keep a lookout for any complaints which might have some
interest to fellow nerds on here, desperate enough to read any old guff.
I thought the following "peu de morceau" might have a passing interest:
Quote:
"ASA Bans DAB Audio Quality Claims"
In the October issue of their Broadcasting Advertising Adjudications, the
Advertising Standards Authority upheld 2 out of 3 complaints about the use
of the following terms in an adverts for DAB radio:
The claims that were made for DAB were that it gave 'crystal clear sound'
which was 'distortion free'.
Here are the ASA's rulings:
Ruling on complaint 2:
"We noted that DAB digital radio removed the hiss and crackle that could
interfere with analogue radio. However, we understood that, particularly
in areas where the digital signal was poor, distortion could occur with
DAB digital radio.
While hiss and crackle were removed, there were other factors that could
impact on the clarity of the sound, such as the distance between the
transmitter and the receiver.
We noted that Switchdigital acknowledged that "individual listening
environments" and the presence of "artefacts" on some radio stations could
lead to problems with sound quality. We also noted that a signal which was
too "high" or too "low" could lead to the sort of "bubbly" or "gurgling"
problem highlighted by the complainant.
We therefore considered that not all DAB digital radio listeners would
receive "distortion free" and "crystal clear" sound and concluded that
the claims were misleading."
Ruling on complaint 3:
"We believed the ad would be understood by listeners to mean that DAB
digital radio was superior to analogue in terms of audio quality,
particularly since the benefits of DAB were set in contrast to problems
that affected analogue ("taking the hiss out of the way you listen to the
radio").
(I suppose "taking the hiss" is at least an improvement on claims
1 & 2 which were more your "taking the p***", scribbled 'EBT).
The judgement continues:
We received no evidence to show that DAB digital radio was superior to
analogue radio in terms of audio quality. We therefore concluded that
the ad was misleading. The ad was in breach of CAP (Broadcast) Radio
Advertising Standards Code section 2, rule 3 (Misleadingness)."
Although this is a very good result for anybody that knows the truth about
the audio quality and reception quality on DAB, I am disappointed with the
ASA's ruling on complaint 1:
Ruling on complaint 1:
"The RACC said the ad did not claim that DAB digital radio duplicated the
original sound of recordings. They therefore believed that the complainant
had misinterpreted the ad.
We agreed. The ad did not claim that DAB digital radio duplicated the
original sound of recordings. We considered that listeners would
understand the claim "distortion free" referred merely to the absence of
interference. We therefore considered that the ad was not misleading for
the reason suggested by the complainant."
Here is the relevant dictionary definition of the word 'distortion' as
applied to the subject of audio signals:
"noun: A change (usually undesired) in the waveform of an acoustic or
analog electrical signal; the difference between two measurements of a
signal (as between the input and output signal)"
I would also suggest that that is the commonly-held understanding of the
word, so I disagree with the ASA's view that the general public only
consider distortion with respect to radio to mean 'interference'.
Other than that, though, I'm very happy with this ruling.
Note, however, this ruling only bans these terms from broadcast adverts,
and I'm pretty sure that the Internet doesn't come under the jurisdiction
of the ASA, so online retailers and broadcasters' websites can continue to
make these ludicrous claims about the audio and reception quality that DAB
provides.
I would urge people to contact their trading standards office to complain
about such mis-leading claims, especially on the broadcasters' websites
and the big online retailers, quoting the ASA's decision that the terms
are mis-leading.
The most efficacious way to take action would be, for example, to complain
to your trading standards office about, say Argos or the other big online
retailers, because that way they would have to remove all claims about all
DAB products, and that is better than messing about with all the smaller
online retailers.
It would be nice to think that the BBC and the other broadcasters would
voluntarily remove these mis-leading claims, but I suppose the fact that
they're happy to make such mis-leading claims in the first place shows
that they're not bothered about mis-leading the public.
17th October
End quote.
If you're even sadder than me, you can go to the link below, and get to
the adjudication from there. If you feel the urge to do so, you need to
get out more:-)
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/archive_2005_Oct_Dec.htm
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
QTH: Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 15:54 on 2005-Dec-13
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
