[DarthFader]

Originally Posted by wombler

Reminds me of the story in my local paper about the bloke who was trying to sue a certain supermarket because he thought the slogan "that's why mums go to iceland" was derogatory to single parent dads !!

To be fair if there was a 'that's why dads shop at B&Q' there would be an outcry. Works both ways

[wombler]

not at all - I'm all for equal rights
If the wife wants to spend her money there rather that mine, it'll be rude of me to stand in her way!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by wombler

Reminds me of the story in my local paper about the bloke who was trying to sue a certain supermarket because he thought the slogan "that's why mums go to iceland" was derogatory to single parent dads !!

Hilarious, this thread has made me laugh a lot

[joshua_welby]

Originally Posted by wombler

not at all - I'm all for equal rights
If the wife wants to spend her money there rather that mine, it'll be rude of me to stand in her way!

If I had a wife I won't stand in her way either

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's not about legal issues, nor whether Virgin Media customers would like Sky Atlantic or not, it's about understanding that "some of" does not mean "all of".

As someone who doesn't have VM and is unlikely to for several years (if ever), I found the advert ambiguous. It should prompt prospective customers to check out the details for themselves but sadly, some people won't bother.

People can argue about the exact meaning of words all they want but the overall impression that "you won't need to worry that you won't get some of your favourite Sky Channels" could imply that you will (or can) get all the main Sky Channels ('your' favourites being a general 'your'). It's cleverly worded by the ad agency, who know that some people will think you can get all the main Sky channels, as most people won't bother to do their homework.

I've no idea if Sky Atlantic is one of the main or "your favourite" Sky channels or not, and the HD versions certainly aren't - but either way, the ad is ambiguous. It's clever 'borderline' marketing, so well done to the agency!

If reported to the ASA, and I wouldn't, all they will do is ask Sky to clarify the ad with a caption, it's not a big deal IMO and I wouldn't otherwise invoke a penalty. Caveat Emptor!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by d'@ve

As someone who doesn't have VM and is unlikely to for several years (if ever), I found the advert ambiguous. It should prompt prospective customers to check out the details for themselves but sadly, some people won't bother.

People can argue about the exact meaning of words all they want but the overall impression that "you won't need to worry that you won't get some of your favourite Sky Channels" could imply that you will (or can) get all the main Sky Channels ('your' favourites being a general 'your'). It's cleverly worded by the ad agency, who know that some people will think you can get all the main Sky channels, as most people won't bother to do their homework.

I've no idea if Sky Atlantic is one of the main or "your favourite" Sky channels or not, and the HD versions certainly aren't - but either way, the ad is ambiguous. It's clever 'borderline' marketing, so well done to the agency!

If reported to the ASA, and I wouldn't, all they will do is ask Sky to clarify the ad with a caption, it's not a big deal IMO and I wouldn't otherwise invoke a penalty. Caveat Emptor!

Very good post and I agree that VM have used clever wording but think this protects them. PS You obviously mean VM not Sky in the last paragraph.

[auntyjames]

Originally Posted by d'@ve

As someone who doesn't have VM and is unlikely to for several years (if ever), I found the advert ambiguous. It should prompt prospective customers to check out the details for themselves but sadly, some people won't bother.

People can argue about the exact meaning of words all they want but the overall impression that "you won't need to worry that you won't get some of your favourite Sky Channels" could imply that you will (or can) get all the main Sky Channels ('your' favourites being a general 'your'). It's cleverly worded by the ad agency, who know that some people will think you can get all the main Sky channels, as most people won't bother to do their homework.

I've no idea if Sky Atlantic is one of the main or "your favourite" Sky channels or not, and the HD versions certainly aren't - but either way, the ad is ambiguous. It's clever 'borderline' marketing, so well done to the agency!
Caveat Emptor!

My point exactly but better put. Thank you.

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by auntyjames

On another note, whilst I don't agree with some of Joshua's posts and normally welcome Ben's, on this one Joshua is 99% correct and Ben should have stayed out of any argument when he works for VM.

1. This is an open forum and any registered member can post.
2. Ben posts on here in a personal capacity and not as a VM employee.

The adverts are misleading in the assumption that the sky basic channels are available (before anyone says Sky Atlantic is not a basic channel please show me a sky package that it is not on - and I don't include freeview from sky).

It's nothing to do with which package the channel is in. (Don't Sky only do the one package now anyway?) It is not in the official "basics" package that Sky agreed to allow other providers access to after OFCOM forced them to do so.

And there's nothing "clever" about the wording. It's just words.

[martine93]

Originally Posted by carl.waring

1. This is an open forum and any registered member can post.
2. Ben posts on here in a personal capacity and not as a VM employee.


It's nothing to do with which package the channel is in. (Don't Sky only do the one package now anyway?) It is not in the official "basics" package that Sky agreed to allow other providers access to after OFCOM forced them to do so.

Sky were not forced by ofcom to allow other providers access to the Sky basic channels.

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Very good post and I agree that VM have used clever wording but think this protects them. PS You obviously mean VM not Sky in the last paragraph.

Thanks (also auntyjames) and yes, the final "Sky" was a typo/brain-freeze!

A deliberately muddy-worded advert that will suck a few extra unwary customers in, I suspect. Irritating but a not uncommon practice in advertising.

[diablo]

Is the Sky 3D channel only available from Sky and not on Virgin?

[Timotei75]

Originally Posted by d'@ve

A deliberately muddy-worded advert that will suck a few extra unwary customers in, I suspect.

Rubbish. If anyone enters in to a subscription TV package without checking the channels they want are in that package, they deserve everything they get. That or, y'know, they have the right to end the contract within 28 days.

[joshua_welby]

Originally Posted by diablo

Is the Sky 3D channel only available from Sky and not on Virgin?

Sky 3D is only available on Sky, yes

It is not a popular/favourite channel because it is only available to these customers, so it has not got a great take up

You HAVE to have both of these things to get it

People with 3D TV sets obviously
People with the Sky World HD package
(Entertainment Extra pack, HD Pack and both the Sky Sports and the Sky Movies packages current cost £63.25 until the end of August 2012)

[Richardcoulter]

Originally Posted by real world

The strangest advert I have seen lately is the Sky one advertising enjoy a summer of sport in hd. It then says also avaliable on Bbc and itv in he In the same advert in white print under the headline?

I'm sure that they only do this because they are obliged to.

Originally Posted by carl.waring

1. This is an open forum and any registered member can post.
2. Ben posts on here in a personal capacity and not as a VM employee.


It's nothing to do with which package the channel is in. (Don't Sky only do the one package now anyway?) It is not in the official "basics" package that Sky agreed to allow other providers access to after OFCOM forced them to do so.

And there's nothing "clever" about the wording. It's just words.

Employees have found themselves in trouble with their employers for what they write on the internet, even when posting in their own time and making it clear that they are their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect their employers viewpoint on whatever matter is being discussed.

Most employers now look at and monitor social networking sites too, for any inappropriate behaviour/comments. Some employers are even insisting on being provided with passwords to social networking sites, which is problematic because, for example, the facebook t&c's state that this should never be disclosed.

In essence, all employees need to be careful about what they publish on the internet, particularly if it is in the public domain about who they work for.

Only a fool would risk problems for themselves at work (particularly in the current economic climate) by seeing how far they can push things in forums, social networking sites etc.

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by Richardcoulter

Employees have found themselves in trouble with their employers for what they write on the internet....[snip]

Yes but not sure what this has to do with the original comment about Ben not posting on a certain subject just because he's a VM employee. The person who made the comment seemed to be saying that Ben's comments couldn't be trusted because he works for VM; not for any of the reasons you state.

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by Timotei75

Rubbish...

Not a helpful contribution. Seems pointless to respond any further to that, so I won't.

[Timotei75]

Ah, the moral high ground, good play.

[Richardcoulter]

Originally Posted by carl.waring

Yes but not sure what this has to do with the original comment about Ben not posting on a certain subject just because he's a VM employee. The person who made the comment seemed to be saying that Ben's comments couldn't be trusted because he works for VM; not for any of the reasons you state.

You make a fair point (and Ben didn't say anything "controversial" anyway.) Also, people have the right to form and express an opinion, whoever they work for.

In essence, I was just saying that it is sensible for people to think twice before expressing their opinion, if their is any chance that it might bring them into disrepute with their employer and/or their customers, suppliers etc.

It is now also routine for employers to inspect social networking sites/forums etc prior to interview/appointment/consideration for promotion to see the calibre of the person in question.

There is even an industry where people are paid to do this.

So, think twice before you upload your drunken antics, the time you went skinny dipping or tried smoking a joint

[munta]

I don't think VM are misleading in the slightest. If I saw a bookshop advertise that they stocked some of my favourite books then I don't think that they would have every single book ever published in stock. I would take that to mean that they gave a reasonable selection to choose from. Some people get too worked up about the language in adverts. Personally I don't think that every advert should be worded for the benefit of complete idiots. Adverts are very much like a headline, they give you a flavour of what the product is but if you want to know the full details then you have to read the full details.

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by Richardcoulter

In essence, I was just saying that it is sensible for people to think twice before expressing their opinion...

A rule I'm sure we all should follow

And well said, munta. Exactly right.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by diablo

Is the Sky 3D channel only available from Sky and not on Virgin?

Yes. Virgin Media have their 3D programmes mainly on VOD.

[Richardcoulter]

The Eurosport 3D linear channel that was on for the tennis will shortly restart for the olympics.

Is this channel on Sky too, or is it a VM exclusive?

[martine93]

Originally Posted by Richardcoulter

Is this channel on Sky too, or is it a VM exclusive?

On Sky , Eurosport 3D coverage of french open was showing on Sky 3D which was only available to Sky World HD subscribers , Eurosport 3D coverage of the olympics will be showing on Sky 3D which will be made available to all HD pack subscribers for the duration of the olympics

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Richardcoulter

It is now also routine for employers to inspect social networking sites/forums etc prior to interview/appointment/consideration for promotion to see the calibre of the person in question.

There is even an industry where people are paid to do this.

So, think twice before you upload your drunken antics, the time you went skinny dipping or tried smoking a joint

Legal advice is that employers should not do this. Only where significant risks exist should it be done and even then, candidates have the right to challenge anything that is found.
Using social media in this way has a number of risks especially round accuracy: - Have you got the right person? And how accurate is of the information found on social media - did you really drink ten pints on a school night or is that an in joke?
It also opens up employers to discrimination claims as they can find out what the Information Commissioner defines as protected characteristics (sex, disability, age, race, religion, sexual orientation) which do not have to be disclosed when applying for jobs.

[Richardcoulter]

Originally Posted by martine93

On Sky , Eurosport 3D coverage of french open was showing on Sky 3D which was only available to Sky World HD subscribers , Eurosport 3D coverage of the olympics will be showing on Sky 3D which will be made available to all HD pack subscribers for the duration of the olympics

Thanks for that :-)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Legal advice is that employers should not do this. Only where significant risks exist should it be done and even then, candidates have the right to challenge anything that is found.
Using social media in this way has a number of risks especially round accuracy: - Have you got the right person? And how accurate is of the information found on social media - did you really drink ten pints on a school night or is that an in joke?
It also opens up employers to discrimination claims as they can find out what the Information Commissioner defines as protected characteristics (sex, disability, age, race, religion, sexual orientation) which do not have to be disclosed when applying for jobs.

You make some very valid points, but, in the real world, a lot of this is done unofficially with no written records of any findings.

I know of a man who thought it would be clever to have a picture of himself put onto his social networking site page whilst snorting white powder from a table. He claimed that it was a joke and that the white powder was sugar. Even in the unlikely event that he actually was snorting sugar, he was disciplined for his stupidity, inappropriate attitude towards the taking of illegal drugs and bringing the company into disrepute.