Misleading telescope advertising: ASA complaint

[E621Keith]

This isn't directly related to the great work that Steve is doing, but I couldn't help noticing that one of the reviewers on Amazon that gave the scope a 5 star review, has also been giving some rather scary advice...

Question:

"Hello JB,

how much detail can you see with this telescope? Can you see Jupiter's bands or moons? What about other planets?

thanks!"

Answer:

"Hi there

You can see the main band (in 1/3 of height) you can spot GANYMADE, CALLISTO, IO and EUROPA, Saturn, sunspot (moon filter required, and sunglasses). Do not expect Hubble telescope quality (different price and different technology, combination of infrared, x-ray, visible light and Photoshop). This is my first telescope (I've used binoculars before) in my opinion, with this telescope, clear sky is all you need.

regards

John"

Really scary stuff. I just hope that was missed by anyone reading the response.

I hope the poster is OK. I didn't read those comments before and I don't think the Saxon was equipped any sun filter. It's terrifying to think this John B would came up with something so dangerous.

You can see from the reviews, none of the people who bought the scope have ever used a telescope. One of them gave it four stars despite stating he never used it due to clouds.

[E621Keith]

Further to my earlier comment, I have today heard back from the ASA. They will follow it up under their formal investigations procedure, which effectively gives the advertiser of removing the bits that I've complained about or providing evidence to support their claims. If they contest it by providing evidence, I will be asked to comment on that evidence and on the recommendation that the ASA investigator makes to the ASA Council.

Thanks for doing this. Let us know if you need any help.

[BinocularSky]

Update:

This morning I received a letter from ASA, saying that they will implement a formal investigations procedure into Argos's misleading advertising of the "Danubia" telescopes.

I have now received notification of the "informal resolution", which was published yesterday on the ASA web site (no detail because it is an informal resolution). In her letter to me, the ASA Investigations Executive with whom I have been dealing wrote (the emphasis is mine):

They have provided assurance that the ads you complained about will be amended. We have agreed with them that any superlatives ("boasting", "impressive" magnification of... etc...) and references to "optimum" will be removed; however we do not feel that we can ask advertisers to remove factual figures as they appear in isolation. We hope that these amendments will avoid any implication that the stated magnifications provide a clear view.

I would class this as a partial success, but I am not happy: Exactly how does a statement of magnification not imply that it provides a clear view, unless there is an accompanying statement that it may/will/can not do so?

I'm going to try to seek clarification from the ASA on this, but I would also value the thoughts of others on this:

• Do we need a slew of complaints to the ASA? (I can provide a pro-forma for people to adapt if required.)
  
• Do we need to shift the approach to one that doesn't involve the ASA if success is only partial?
  
• Is this as far as we can reasonably expect advertisers to go?
  

Looking forward to hearing what people think.

(The complaint about Amazon is still outstanding.)

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

A slew of complaints, might help, but I am not sure I can help, because I not a UK resident

[JamesF]

If I'm reading this properly, they're saying that it's ok to state 500x magnification if that's theoretically possible even if it's not actually usable because the view is not clear?

I think it might be worth getting clarification on that point before deciding how best to proceed.

James

[BinocularSky]

I think it might be worth getting clarification on that point before deciding how best to proceed.

I agree. My reply to the ASA Investigations Exec:

(Preamble)

In your letter, you wrote:

We hope that these amendments will avoid any implication that the stated magnifications provide a clear view.

Exactly how does a statement of magnification not imply that it provides a clear view, unless there is an accompanying statement that it may/will/can not do so? Surely any reasonable person will assume that Argos would not advertise a magnification in the knowledge that, according to the laws of physical optics, it cannot provide a clear view?

I look forward to receiving your clarification of these points.

[BinocularSky]

PS, this is an example of what has changed:

[foundaplanet]

I admire what you are doing here Steve.

I personally have no idea how these things work with regards to rules and laws. I wonder is there anyway to be able to get manufacturers to have to print something on the literature or box along the lines of '(it is considered that) the highest practical/usable magnification of any telescope is considered to be 50x per inch/25 mm of aperture'.

[glowjet]

Without Steve`s good work there would not have been the progress so far, but if manufactures were made to put a truthful and honest highest practical magnification, in relation to objective size and sky conditions, then no doubt, sales of small scopes could drop through the floor, I feel.... "Your 60mm scope is going to give you a maximum magnification in the order of 120X when sky conditions are extremely good, which is rare in the UK, but under normal circumstances around a maximum of 100x can be achieved with a reasonable clarity of view", is not going to be as attractive as the atrocious claims they make now

[foundaplanet]

Without Steve`s good work there would not have been the progress so far, but if manufactures were made to put a truthful and honest highest practical magnification, in relation to objective size and sky conditions, then no doubt, sales of small scopes could drop through the floor, I feel.... "Your 60mm scope is going to give you a maximum magnification in the order of 120X when sky conditions are extremely good, which is rare in the UK, but under normal circumstances around a maximum of 100x can be achieved with a reasonable clarity of view", is not going to be as attractive as the atrocious claims they make now

Absolutely and if there is a yearly award for contribution to astronomy then Steve should get it.

[BinocularSky]

I have now heard back from the ASA; this is the relevant paragraph of the reply:

The magnification figures stated relate to factual information about the products. In that respect we consider that, as they appear in isolation, their presence in marketing communications do not breach the CAP Code. We also understand that magnification figures do not represent the clarity of view and consider that such information would be known or research by consumers who wish to purchase a telescope.

I am currently considering my response, but I think the relevant thing here is that these telescopes are hawked to beginners who do not consider the need to research optical principles.

Absolutely and if there is a yearly award for contribution to astronomy then Steve should get it.

That is very kind of you, but there are others who make far greater contributions than I.

[NeilFawcett]

The problem is the magnification is not a fair reflection of real world capability.

Beginners will see 150x and 350x, and go with latter with the impression it's a better telescope. Where we know, chances are even half that magnification will barely be useful/clear enough.

[NeilFawcett]

^^ Sorry, to add to that last post. If they included a super cheap x2 Barlow lens could they then list it as 700x?

[JamesF]

I am currently considering my response, but I think the relevant thing here is that these telescopes are hawked to beginners who do not consider the need to research optical principles.

I think that's one of the most weasel-worded responses I've ever seen.

I'd say it's very relevant that these telescopes are targeted at beginners who probably wouldn't even understand the need to research the validity of the claims made on the box. It's completely unreasonable to assert that they should know to research the product first. Beginners should have a reasonable expectation that it can do what it says on the box in a usable way. Anyone else isn't going to be buying this tat in the first place.

James

[JamesF]

(Their response is weasel-worded, not yours, obviously

James

[paulf]

When cameras are for sale they say something like "21x Optical Zoom" and reference to 'digital' zoom is quoted separately. Is that a legal requirement?

Can that be applied to telescope magnification in any way? e.g. 150x practical mag, 500x theoretical mag (or similar!).

[paulf]

So this little vivitar point and shoot:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vivitar-T325-Compact-Digital-Camera/dp/B008N9PHXU

"3x Optical / 4x Digital Zoom"

I assume there is a reason that they can't just say "12x Zoom".

So why can't that apply to telescopes?

"120x Practical Magnification / 350x Theoretical Magnification"

[foundaplanet]

Edited due to needing capatcha code input.

[foundaplanet]

I have now heard back from the ASA; this is the relevant paragraph of the reply:

ASA said:

The magnification figures stated relate to factual information about the products. In that respect we consider that, as they appear in isolation, their presence in marketing communications do not breach the CAP Code. We also understand that magnification figures do not represent the clarity of view and consider that such information would be known or research by consumers who wish to purchase a telescope.

I am currently considering my response, but I think the relevant thing here is that these telescopes are hawked to beginners who do not consider the need to research optical principles.

Then they are effectively saying they could supply a 1 mm eyepiece and say for example 'maximum mag of 1600x' and they could do nothing about it. There must be some part in their code that is protective towards misleading advertising practices. They are after all mostly novelty items as opposed to amateur instruments.

You are probably reaching a point where some professional knowledge would be very helpful.

[NeilFawcett]

So why can't that apply to telescopes?

"120x Practical Magnification / 350x Theoretical Magnification"

How would you define practical? Too vague surely?

[JamesF]

How would you define practical? Too vague surely?

You could surely define a (more) practical maximum as twice the aperture?

James

[paulf]

How would you define practical? Too vague surely?

I'll leave it to people better qualified in optics to decide what the correct words are and how they are defined, it was just an example to show the parallels with camera spec definitions

[ibraidwo]

Is this not similar to cars - a manufacturer may state that a car can do 180mph (and yes it can), however 'practically' you can't because there are laws and/or limitations to what joe public has access to in reality.

...so with scopes, the maths says you can, but the reality is that you can't effectively achieve what's being stated.

we all know that we can't drive around at 180mph and the assumption in the response is that joe public will have done research and would know what you can and can't do with a scope (most people actually wouldn't)

this is a fine legal line that someone far more clever than I would need to help you with.

I very much applaud your efforts though Steve.

[Naemeth]

Is this not similar to cars - a manufacturer may state that a car can do 180mph (and yes it can), however 'practically' you can't because there are laws and/or limitations to what joe public has access to in reality.

...so with scopes, the maths says you can, but the reality is that you can't effectively achieve what's being stated.

we all know that we can't drive around at 180mph and the assumption in the response is that joe public will have done research and would know what you can and can't do with a scope (most people actually wouldn't)

this is a fine legal line that someone far more clever than I would need to help you with.

I very much applaud your efforts though Steve.

The difference between telescopes and cars is rather large though. It's illegal to go above 70mph unless you are on a racetrack or one of the few motorways that have no speed limits. It's not illegal to use your scope above 2x per mm, you'll just get no use out of it as it won't perform all that well (or even at all at 500x+ with 60mm aperture). You could say that a Reliant Robin could go to 85mph, but I doubt anyone would want to risk it.

[ibraidwo]

Ok so my analogy doesn't quite fit , it was close though...

the scope issue is about it being fit for purpose, and these scopes are fit for 'a' purpose but not to the extent they are being described