Virgin Wines loudly and repeatedly promise "next day delivery" on their wine cases. What they don't tell you is that this excludes orders made on Friday. And Saturday. And Sunday too. Basically, they only consider an order valid if it was placed on Monday - Thursday.

I believed their lies and ordered my wine on Friday morning - so it would arrive in time for Cheesemas. It was only after placing my order that I was made aware of Virgin's "creative" interpretation of "next day."

The Evidence

The very first page of their promotion mentions "next day delivery".

No mention of restrictions there. No asterisk and no disclaimer.

A little further on in the purchase process, and I'm again promised "next day delivery".

I'm well before the cut off time - both for regular and gift orders - and I'm reassured that there's only a 4% chance I won't get my lovely wine.

Still, best to check the terms and conditions, eh?

Express! Well! Now I know I'm getting my wine tomorrow!

It was only after I placed my order that I was explicitly told that a Friday order means a Monday delivery.

The Accusation

I've reported this to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority. They appear to agree that this is misleading and they've raised the issue with Virgin.

Am I being unreasonable?

If the adverts had said "next working day delivery", this could have been avoided. The only reason I can see for Virgin's choice of wording is that they intend to mislead their potential customers.

We live in a world of instant delivery - or close to it. If I place an Amazon Prime order on Saturday, it will get delivered on a Sunday. The concept of "working days" is an anachronism which isn't suited to the modern world.

The web is not the same as a printed brochure - it can be updated instantly. It would be easy for Virgin's website to dynamically change depending on the weekday. Once Friday rolls around, the website should let customers know that their tasty wine won't appear until after the weekend.

What's next?

The ASA have asked Virgin Wines to respond by 22nd December. We'll see if they can manage those timescales.

I reported the company - Media Discovery - to the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) who, after a perfunctory investigation, decided not to prosecute. They bought the unlikely story that Media Discovery had a rogue employee trying to entice bloggers into breaking the law.

Well, the constant stream of visitors finding my blog by searching for "Media Discovery Blog Spam" would indicate that the ASA's investigation had no real impact on Media Discovery's behaviour.

In November, the ASA had the cheek to warn bloggers about accepting sponsored posts without revealing their origin.

We’re reminding bloggers who are paid to write positive reviews or comments about a product or service that they must be up-front with their followers by making clear that it’s advertising. Not only will this help bloggers avoid misleading people and breaking the ad rules, it will also stop them from potentially breaking the law.

Why are we doing this? We’ve received a steady stream of enquiries from bloggers wanting clarity on this issue and how the rules apply to their blogs. Some have also raised concerns with us, as well as via their own blogs, about social media and PR agencies who’ve apparently offered them money to advertise on their behalf while encouraging them not to declare that they’re doing so.

ASA - Blurring advertising and blogs – why it pays to know the ad rules

It's quite right that the ASA reminds bloggers of the law - but I think it's a bit hypocritical that they aren't going after the firms who are promoting this fraudulent method of advertising.

If you search through the ASA's recent rulings, you won't find any investigations into "sponsored posts" on blogs.

If you're a blogger and you've been contacted by someone who wants to run one of these dodgy adverts on your site - please make a complaint to the ASA.

Back in September, I complained to the ASA about the Valkee website. I felt that it was making unfounded claims, was confusing testimonial with science, and was generally misleading.

In December, the ASA referred it to their counterparts in Finland for investigation.

Today, I received this back from them.

As you know, we previously referred your complaint about Valkee Ltd to our Finish counterparts.

I've now heard back from MEN, and in summary they state that the ad was considered to be misleading. The advertisers have been advised to amend the website and have been given information and guidance on how to stay in line with the Finish Code of Practice.

I do hope that this outcome is satisfactory to you, and finally I'd like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to raise your concerns with us.

Best regards,

[Redacted]

Cross-Border Complaints Executive

I'm still trying to find out if MEN have published anything specifying exactly which changes have been advised.

According to the ASA:

I don't think they operate in the same way as the ASA in terms of published adjudications, but the website is: http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi/en-GB/consumer-advice/consumer-rights/marketing-and-advertising/. Looking at this it appears MEN referred the complaint to the Consumer Ombudsman for action as it is them that responded to us with their findings.

For information, the response to us was simply that they found the marketing to be misleading and that they had advised the advertisers of their requirements.

Wonga, the payday loan company, has found itself in a bit of hot water recently. They've had an Advertising Standards Authority adjudication against one of their adverts and they have raised the ire of Stella Creasy MP over their sponsorship of the Tube on New Years.

Even London's mayor has said

people should be aware of the extortionate rates of interest that they can charge and people should not enter into irrational or unwise debt obligations

Now, I'm not convinced that payday loan companies are bad per se. If you need a few hundred pounds to avoid being thrown out of your home, these companies can provide a service which traditional banks can't - or won't - provide. That said, taking out a loan is something which should not be done lightly - and should only be done with the full facts at your disposal.

That's why I'm confused by Wonga's latest advertising campaign on mobile. Here are three adverts that I've spotted recently.

None of them display the APR - even though there is sufficient room to do so. I suppose they could argue that they are advertising the Wonga Android App - not a loan. Therefore they don't need to display the APR. I'm not convinced that's a sound argument - more on that in a moment.

Within the marketplace description, there's no mention of the APR. Only one of the screenshots mentions the APR.

I've been taking a look at the CAP guidelines and recent adjudications, and the OFT FAQs on this subject and I'm left a little confused as to whether hiding the APR in this way is allowed.

Is it simply enough to say

"I'm not advertising [banned product] - I'm advertising an app that lets you get it."?

If so, I think the guidelines need to change.

Two Questions

1. Are Wonga in breach of the ASA and OFT codes governing advertising for financial products?
2. Does this trivialise money lending?

I'm not saying that Wonga are in breach of the rules. I don't even wish to raise a complaint against them. I will be asking the ASA and OFT for clarification on this matter.

As for the app itself, it's reasonably well crafted. While it's great that you can do so much with a phone, I remain a little uneasy about applying for complex financial products while on the bus. But perhaps I'm getting old. I'm sure that next year I'll be applying for a mortgage via a mobile website and not think it anything strange.

Now With Extra Irony

In one of those delightfully serendipitous moments, a Wonga advert popped up as I was reading Stella Creasy's tweets.