Via BitterWallet - a new mildly amusing blog: Things Real People Don't Say About Advertising:

BT and net neutrality.

BT - claiming in one breath they're not doing something while saying they are in the next. Via the advertising medium of a newspaper quote. (Or possibly a press release - I haven't located the original source of the quote.)

First, a brief definition: "Net neutrality": not forcing customers (or the websites providing the data they want to look at) to pay extra for bandwidth.

For example: since the iPlayer uses up more bandwidth than, say, email, this provides a headache for ISPs since it uses up a lot of bandwidth. ISPs either provide that extra bandwidth, or manage the traffic such that other traffic gets priority over iPlayer traffic.

Net neutrality (loosely - it's a bit more complicated) is the concept that while ISPs may take reasonable measures to manage their traffic, they shouldn't try to profit from it by, say, charging  either the BBC on the one hand, or those using iPlayer on the other (or even both) to prioritise iPlayer traffic.

Critics claim that opponents to net neutrality want to create a 'two tier' internet, those who are willing/forced to pay for prioritised traffic, and those who refuse/cannot afford to.

BT have a new product "Content Connect" (warning - annoying auto-play video.) Essentially a service whereby the likes of the BBC and Google (i.e. YouTube) can pay BT some money to have their content delivered faster to the user, or you, the end user can pay for faster, 'guaranteed' content.

When called on this by the Open Rights Group:

"We are talking about ISPs competing with the Internet for content delivery. Whether films, music or gaming services, the idea is that ISPs will deliver content better and more reliably than the Internet. That says a lot about the state of investment in our Internet.

"The result could be a fundamental shift away from buying services from the Internet to bundled services from ISPs: which would reduce competition and take investment away from Internet companies. That would be bad for everyone."

Or the FT:

BT is starting to sell a new service that gives broadband providers the tools to create a two-tier internet, where some video content would reach consumers in a better condition than other material.

The service devised by BT’s wholesale unit gives broadband providers the opportunity to charge content owners for high quality distribution of their video products to consumers.

BT replied:

"Contrary to recent reports in the media, BT's Content Connect service will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply offer service providers the option of differentiating their broadband offering through enhanced content delivery,"

Translation:

Content Connect will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply create a two-tier internet.

Update: Natwest - helpful banking

2011/03/03: Update: Natwest fail to pass a fifth of their self imposed targets.


Back in August I pulled Natwest's Helpful Banking advert apart thusly:

It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did.[2]
And why 160 branches will open earlier, or close later.

[...]
[2] Which banks don't have branches open on Saturdays? And I note that they don't qualify this by saying how many of their branches are open on Saturday. (I'm assuming it's not all of them since their branch locator has a check box for listing only those open on Saturdays.)

It would appear two others noticed this and put in a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (I was not one of them) and Natwest got a slap on the wrist as a result:

Issue

Two viewers challenged whether the claim "It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did" misleadingly implied that all NatWest branches were open on Saturdays, which they understood was not the case.

Response

[...] [Natwest] said they had a long history of Saturday openings and, in response to customer demand, 675 of their 1552[1] branches were currently open on Saturdays.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the ad focused on the NatWest Customer Charter, but nonetheless considered that viewers would understand the claim "It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did" to mean that all NatWest branches were open on Saturdays. Because we understood that that was not the case, and there was no qualification in the ad to explain that the claim applied to selected branches only, we concluded that the ad was misleading.[...]

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

[1] That'd be 43% then - not even 1/2 of them.

Normal people are terrorist suspects

Spotted via Dizzy:

The government wasting more money on yet another pointless advertising campaign.

Examples of suspicious behaviour[current]?

• Van - Terrorists need transport.
• Passport - Terrorists use multiple identities.
• Mobile phone - Terrorists need communication.
• Camera - Terrorists need information.
• Chemicals - Do you know someone buying large or unusual quantities of chemicals for no obvious reason?
• Mask and goggles - Terrorists use protective equipment.
• Credit card - Terrorists need funding.
• Computer - Terrorists use computers.
• Suitcase - Terrorists need to travel.
• Padlock - Terrorists need storage. 

I mean, really - can you come up with at least one valid and non-terrorist related use for each of those items?

I could probably come up with my own list:

• Air - terrorists need to breathe. Have you seen someone breathing recently?
• Water - terrorists need to drink. Have you seen anyone drinking?
• Food - terrorists need to eat. Have you seen someone trying to buy sandwiches at Tescos?
• Toilets - terrorists need to piss and have a dump. Have you seen anyone visiting the pleasantly smelling lavatorial facilities in your local pub?

Nanny-statism at it's unpleasant worst.

PDBTL #1 - seatbelts.

First in a series of (UK) government sponsored advertising, suggesting that perhaps the subjects citizens shouldn't break the law, and wasting tax-payer's money in the process.

This is the "gory" version of this particular advert (the pre 9pm watershed version only omits the allegedly 'graphical' stuff that happens inside Richard's body.)

Richard didn't want to die, [Richard is driving along] but he couldn't stop himself.[1]

The collision [two cars head-on-collide[2] in a residential area[3]] with the car didn't kill him, but he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, so he continued on his journey. [Airbag deploys and Richard hits it full on.][4]

When he hit the inside of the car[5] [his head breaks the windscreen[4]], that didn't kill him either.

But his internal organs carried on travelling until they hit his ribcage[5] [graphic of Richard's ribs], and his lungs were punctured [his ribs break and enter lungs[6]], and the main artery from his heart was torn.[shift to front view, and slowly leaking blood from his 'heart' is shown[7]]

And that's what killed Richard.

[Fade]

[Think! Always wear a seatbelt]

[1] Perhaps Richard should have had his brakes checked last time they felt spongy then. Or perhaps he should have been paying attention to the road ahead of him. Or perhaps he shouldn't have been speeding.[8]

[2] Such a perfect head on collision. To pick an easily found link at random, in 2005 in the US, only 2% of collisions were head on, (though were the cause of 10% of fatal crashes.) Most other 'head on collisions' don't involve the car going straight ahead as shown and stopping in such a short distance - which is what causes the injuries stated. If there isn't an air-bag[4]

[3] Typical speed limit in a residential area in the UK? (Section 24) 30mph. Are we expected to believe that there is a substantial number of fatal, perfect, head on collisions at 30mph in built up areas where at least one of the drivers dies?

[4] Hang on... Air bag? Those are supposed to protect you are they not? :


WTF is his head doing hitting the windscreen with such force (at 30mph[3]) that it breaks? That is one seriously mis-designed air-bag. Maybe it's the car company that killed him?

[5] The only part of Richard shown hitting the car at any speed is his head. The rest of his torso should have been less affected due to the air-bag[4]

[6] Not necessarily fatal.

[7] Given the speed of the blood coming out of that heart, the pathologist in me suspects that Richard was long dead before the crash, and *that's* what caused the crash.

[8] I have no doubt that one of those adverts will make an appearance here.


Anyway - as pointed out in a previous post, the fact the advert exists is a load of bollocks. While being in a moving car without wearing a seat-belt (with certain exceptions) is against the law, punishable by a fine, the government's own statistics show that the adverts do fuck all:

This publication presents estimates of seatbelt wearing rates [...] by drivers in England. Estimates of seatbelt wearing rates for Scotland are also included. Surveys were carried out in October and November 2009.

The main results from the seatbelt survey for England are:

* The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.

We know you opted out but...

... we really really want to send you some crap.

SO MUCH TO SAY.[1]

DON'T MISS OUT ON ALL THE LATEST MARKET INFORMATION AND INSIGHTS.[2]

Dear XXXXXXXX

We like to keep our customers up—to—date with all that’s going on, whenever we can. However, because you’ve chosen not to receive marketing communications[3] we’re not able to keep you informed of the latest news, offers, and insights.[4]

We’re committed to maintaining the privacy of all our customers.[5] That’s why if you do decide to opt back in, we’ll keep your information safe and secure. We won't share any of your details with third parties for marketing purposes.[6]

THE BENEFITS OF KEEPING UP-TO-DATE.

From fund launches and investor information to latest offers such as the cash back offers. It could benefit you and your investments to stay in touch with all the things we’d love to tell you about.[7]

We’ll only ask you this once every three years.[8] lf you do change your mind later on, you can opt out simply by calling or writing to us.

DON'T MISS OUT ON WHAT WE'VE GOT TO SAY.

Opting back in to our communications is quick and easy. Just fill in the reply form below and send it back to us free of charge in the enclosed reply—paid envelope.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.[9]

Yours sincerely,

[1] Too bloody much it appears.

[2] I somehow think that L&G are hardly on the cutting edge (well any more than, say, LLTSB who took over Clerical Medical recently.)

[3] There was a reason for that. I get enough crap through my letter box. And I thought a check box indicating "don't send me stuff not directly relevant to any accounts I hold with you" meant, well, not sending me stuff that's not directly relevant to any accounts I hold with L&G.

[4] Or advertising asking me to opt back in. Oh... wait... that's not right is it?

[5] No you're not. It's a legal requirement of the Data Protection Act. Not maintaining my privacy might cost you money, and certainly loss of good will.

[6] Of course, that's no guarantee that you won't offer the opportunity to send me crap on behalf of 3rd parties yourselves, is it? And make money from those 3rd parties doing it.

[7] Or I could just read the financial press, (and there's quite a bit of it online.)

[8] Once every three years too often in my opinion. And I'm sure there's absolutely no way of opting out of these three yearly reminders, without ceasing to be your customer. Or even if I ceased to be your customer.

[9] Don't hold your breath.

PDBTL and SWMFM!

I intend to start a series or two.

Please Don't Break The Law (PDBTL)  and Stop Wasting My Fucking Money (SWMFM) - government spending wasting money on advertising suggesting (or telling) you to or not to do something.

This post started off as the first one in the series for PDBTL, but the background to the opening paragraphs started getting a bit verbose, so thought it needed a post in its own right.

Naturally this post is UK-centric, but I've seen other nations' governments' attempting to cajole their subjects/citizens.

---

Since the 'majority'[1] of the UK population that could be bothered to turn out and vote[2] at the last (May 2010) election removed the Labour party, who seemed to be such spendthrifts[3] - especially when it came to spending the tax-payer's money on advertising (£253M 2009/10[4],) I thought at least the coalition would have at least reduced it.

Down to nothing.

Especially since we're they're we're[5] supposed to be saving money in these straightened economic times.

No such luck. Though I have noticed a reduction in the number of government sponsored adverts, they are still there.

The previous Labour government spending on advertising spanned a few areas:

• Health (^178% 2009 ->2010[4])
• get your flu jabs
• stop fucking around
• if you must fuck around get yourself tested for chlamydia
• Education (^50% 2009 -> 2010[4])
• lern 2 spel
• Learn to count
• Learn the other stuff you should have learnt in school but didn't because they didn't teach you nothing.
• HMRC
• Tax needn't be taxing
• Pay your fucking tax
• Pension bollocks (NEST, GMP, S2P, SERPS)[6]
• DWP
• Get a job yer lazy twats
• Among others.

But the ones that really annoy me are the ones that suggest/tell you not to do things that are against the law.

The government thinks they need to tell us what's against the law through the medium of  dance using adverts. Using our tax.

For example in a few clicks of a mouse you can have access to the Highway Code. Or, alternatively, for the Luddites among you, you could pop down to your local WH Smiths and purchase a dead tree version for under £2.00.

In it, it has words of wisdom such as things that are actually against the law, and if you (don't) do them, you leave yourself liable to a fine, points on your licence, or even accommodation at Her Majesty's Pleasure. (The online version lists the relevant laws - not sure about the book.)

Things such as

• Not wearing a seatbelt (Section 99)
• Not using a hand-held mobile phone while in control of a vehicle (Section 149)
• Speeding (Section 124)

All three of the above have copious adverts telling you not to do them.

Why? It tends to change nothing, and some of the statistics show it. The DFT (presumably by wasting more money) collated some results in their report entitled: Seatbelt and mobile phone use surveys: 2009 results. Some 'interesting' results:

• The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.
• The proportion of car front seat passengers observed wearing seat belts or child restraints has decreased slightly from 96 per cent in 2008 to 95 per cent in 2009.
• The proportion of car rear seat passengers observed wearing seat belts or child restraints has risen to 89 per cent in 2009 from 88 per cent in 2008.
  

• Since the last survey in September 2008 the proportion of drivers observed using hand-held mobile phones whilst driving increased (from 1.1 per cent to 1.4 per cent for car drivers and from 2.2 per cent to 2.6 per cent for van and lorry drivers).
• An increase in the number of drivers who appear to be using hands free mobile phones (from 0.5 per cent to 1.4 per cent for car drivers and from 1.1 per cent to 2.4 per cent for van and lorry drivers) was observed in the same period.

Now that first section has changes of at most 1%. Taking front seat passengers with seatbelts, if 2008 was 95.5% and 2009 was 95.4%, and we round to 2s.f. we now have our 1% difference, generated from a 0.1% difference. Well within the bounds of error. (Granted other valid values could be 96.4% and 94.5% (1.9%) but I'm sure that this would have been pointed out had it been the case.)

Likewise, the differences for phone use differ by at most 0.4% - suspected statistical error again.

Hardly encouraging, or justification for spending on adverts, given that we've had these adverts on UK media for years.


The cynic in me is waiting for the first advert telling you not to steal.

Or don't go around murdering people.



[1] Since (roughly) two thirds of eligible voters[2] actually bothered to turn up and vote, and of those only 60%[2] voted for either of the parties eventually involved with the coalition, I hardly think 40% of the electorate constitutes a majority.

[2] http://www.ukpolitical.info/2010.htm

[3] Spendthrifts, contrary to what some/most seem to believe (me too, until I saw that first link when it was first published,) derives from "spending the money that [previous] thrifts saved," and thus indicates someone who spends a lot, rather than someone who is thrifty by not spending.

[4] In Labour's last year of government, they managed to increase their spending on advertising from around £180,000,000 to £253,000,000. (The article says 40% up to £253M)

[5] It's my tax you're spending damn-it!

[6] Win 2 internets if you actually know what all those stand for without hovering over the links, visiting the linked sites, or work in the pension industry.