The Advertising Standards Authority took exception to the implication that the flights were to sunnier climes:
‘We considered that the average consumer would infer from the claim "Book to the sun now" and the image of the woman sunbathing, in a bikini, with a cocktail, that the promotion included fares to destinations warm enough to sunbathe in swimwear during the promotional period.’
In fact, happy £8 travellers, clutching suitcases full of bikinis and sun lotion, would be set down in the chilly February air of Aarhus, Dusseldorf or Oslo - almost certainly a sight worth seeing. You think it unlikely? Consider today's educational standards in the UK and the average level of general knowledge.
Or perhaps I've just spent too much time reading the Daily Mail - or Ambush Predator. Meanwhile, on other matters, it's pretty much business as usual:
Ryanair was also rapped over another advertisement, which offered flights to Dublin for £27.99, over complaints that it was apparently impossible to book at the price quoted because of an additional £6 online check-in fee. The airline was unable to ‘clarify adequately’ how the promotional fare could be achieved, the Advertising Standards Authority said.
Responding to the ASA, a spokesman for Ryanair said: ‘Ryanair has noted the ruling.’
So what? Don't the words 'water' and 'ducks back' apply here? The promotion is over, Ryanair have made their money and who cares? Certainly not O'Leary, who probably watched in amusement as the toothless elderly watchdog bared its gums at him.
Of course, I'm not the only one to find amusement in this kind of thing. They've appeared in other posts elsewhere, but you can never have too much of Fascinating Aida:
I never tire of that video! When is the general public going to realise that you get what you pay for, and if it looks too good to be true, it probably is?
ReplyDeleteXX Responding to the ASA, a spokesman for Ryanair said: ‘Ryanair has noted the ruling.’XX
ReplyDeleteO.K, so as far as teeth go, my old Granny at95 obviously had about the same amount as an ASA ruling.
So why do these firms even BOTHER going to the trouble of "we have noted the ruling"?
What is wrong with "Na? So fucking WHAT pal? Now how about you going and screwing yourself sideways?"
ONLY in this way can these "quangoes" be got rid of. Whilst firms continue to pay lip service, with their "noted the ruling", these "making jobs in return for favours clubs", will be pointing to this as evidence of "How they are neccessary, and are "making a difference"", so as they can squeeze even MORE tax payers money into their off shore accounts.
JuliaM - given the disaster that is education in 21st-century Britain, never.
ReplyDeleteFT, it's like the problem of choosing a political leader; anyone who has climbed the greasy pole is unlikely to have retained the sort of personal integrity we would like to see in them.