Misleading telescope advertising: ASA complaint

[BinocularSky]

In this thread I said I had made an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) complaint about misleading advertising, specifically magnification claims, for budget telescopes (i.e. those targeted at beginners and children, i.e. those who do not have the knowledge/experience to assess the advertising claims). I cited two different retailers who were making these claims, with the intent that, if the complaint is successful, a precedent is set that can be used against others who mislead in this manner. One of them went out of business in a high-profile manner earlier this month, so the investigation into its advertising was not initiated.

Yesterday I received notice from the ASA that it has considered the complaint and has decided to implement its formal investigations procedure with the other retailer. This requests the advertiser to provide evidence for the claims that it makes. The advertiser then has the choice either to change its advertising in a way that resolves my concerns (informal resolution) or to contest it. If it contests it, the case is referred to the ASA Council. I would be given the opportunity to comment on the advertiser's response and the recommendation that wold be made to the Council.

Still hoping for a precedent that can be used to reduce the harm done to our hobby by misleading advertising. I'll report in this thread when there is an outcome.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Good idea. Hope a precedent is set. I always get annoyed by these claims that a poor quality 60mm scope can reach 340x

[RikM]

I hope this is successful but I can see someone with no clue getting out a calculator and saying 'well a 4mm eyepiece and 3x Barlow on a 60/700 = 525x, it's simple maths' The fact that it is 5-10x the maximum useful magnification.

[DirkSteele]

Good luck. I hope this is successful.

[BinocularSky]

Same here, Michael. I've been belly-aching about it for decades, so it's really about time I got off my backside and tried to do something about it. Also considering one with respect to misleading advertising for binoculars, but I want to wait and see how the ASA handles the optical science of this one, so I can learn from it and try to improve chances of success with the next.

[BinocularSky]

I hope this is successful but I can see someone with no clue getting out a calculator and saying 'well a 4mm eyepiece and 3x Barlow on a 60/700 = 525x, it's simple maths'

I doubt it. I've been very impressed with how the ASA has looked at the science when it has dealt with complaints about quack medicine. In this case, I have given it evidence related to diffraction-imposed limits, image resolution on the retina, reasonable compensation for imperfect visual acuity and a host of other stuff. I don't think it would have got as far as a formal investigation (which is only instigated after the complaint has been assessed) unless they thought my case had sufficient merit to have a good chance of success. Of course, that is no guarantee that your fears may not materialise.

I find myself hoping that it is not informally resolved, as no adjudication precedent will be set.

[paul schofield]

Good luck with this. Look forward to hearing the outcome. One small step for the amateur astronomer, one giant gag for the misleading advertisers would be nice.

[Zakalwe]

Given that Jessops are in administration, with very little chance of rising from the ashes, do you think that it will proceed?

[Chris]

Well done you for taking the time to complain:), these massively false claims of high magnification and the Hubble style pics on the telescope packaging have always annoyed me greatly, I fell for this myself one xmas age 8 so I know first hand the dissapointment kids feel. Infact! it put me off Astronomy until I looked at Saturn through a 6" reflector over a decade later aged 20, I was so impressed with the later I chose Astronomy at Uni and have never regretted that decision:) But in summary that rubbish store bought scope which didn't even give a clear view of the Moon nearly ruined my interest:(

I wish you all the best with your complaint:)

Chris

[Naemeth]

Good luck . I really hope, like others', that it sets a precedent. Unfortunately, people getting these scopes assume they'll be able to get to 200x+ with a 60mm scope and think it will be sharp. It puts a lot of them off, and I'm glad the ASA is investigating it.

[BinocularSky]

Given that Jessops are in administration, with very little chance of rising from the ashes, do you think that it will proceed?

It is proceding (with the other retailer).

[crazyjedi]

Here's hoping that more honesty and reality comes from this to save us from the laughable advertising we are subjected to with these scopes

[TheMightyKong]

Well done for taking a stand.

By the way, at first glance the thread title did make me think you were complaining about Astro Systeme Austria - maker of expensive imaging scopes...

[Zakalwe]

It is proceding (with the other retailer).

Great :icon_salut:

It's about time this ridiculous claims were addressed.

[Hobbes]

Well done Steve.

[BinocularSky]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a result, sort of:

The case was resolved informally. This will be mentioned on the ASA web site on 13th Feb.

On one level, i.e. that the advertiser responded appropriately to reason and removed the most outrageous claims, this is a good thing. On another, the lack of formal resolution means that a precedent has not been set. There are also still some things I'm unhappy about in the current adverts, but I don't think they are a priority. The overriding objective must be to try to get the truly outrageous claims removed. Once that has been done, we can afford to get a bit more picky.

What I would like to do is make complaints about some more of these outrageously misleading magnification claims made by advertisers and see how my case stands up if the advertiser contests it. If the case then succeeds, we can be confident that a precedent has been set and that my argument is sufficiently robust. If the case fails, I can refine the argument and try again with a different advertiser. For this reason, I am only going to do two at a time until I can get a successful formal resolution and thus set a precedent. To this end, I would be grateful if people would send me (preferably by PM) the URLs of any adverts they see that make outrageous claims for magnification.

[Chris]

Well done, and keep up the great work:)

[skir]

Good to see someone making a stand against misleading advertising. Well done!

[RikM]

Great first step

[Chris]

The wording and claims on the before advert really is shocking! the second ad is definately an improvement at least:)

[Planetesimal]

The difference between the two is stark, with almost pure facts in the latter versus obnoxious hyperbole in the former. Clearly a precedent is required as chasing down every last one would be like playing whack-a-mole... Really it's better for the companies if there's a level playing field, otherwise the average punter will just go to the companies who are still making crazy claims of super-magnification.

[J_M_Franklin]

Nice work chap, well done, but I fear this could be a ploy by the retailer to avoid enforceable decisions from the ASA, I am sure there is something in the Distance selling regulations about inaccurate, misleading or false claims for a product. I would strongly urge the ASA to make this a formal ruling regardless of the "co-operation" of this specific retailer because others will simply continue as normal

[BinocularSky]

I would strongly urge the ASA to make this a formal ruling regardless of the "co-operation" of this specific retailer because others will simply continue as normal

They don't do that if the misleading advertising is withdrawn. It's a time and resources thing (and, to be frank, outrageous magnification claims should be way down the priority list compared to, say, the peddlers of pseudomedicine).

Thanks to those who have pointed me towards Argos. I'll get onto it on Monday.

On the batphone, so expect typos...

[crazyjedi]

Good show. I will keep my eyes open for these dodgy adds

[E621Keith]

Nice work Steve. It's a good first step against department store scopes.

Hopefully this will be the beginning of the end of department stores and high street shops selling imitation telescope.