Smoking: a question of lifestyle or health?
Tuesday, December 7th 1999, 12:00AM
|
|
|
Do YOU agree with Labour's Superannuation policy? |
|
|
Apparently that is the case.
A person by the name of P Tobin complained recently about Sovereign's ad for its 50 Plus life insurance policy claiming it was "not only misleading. It is dishonest."
The crux of the complaint to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board centred on the phrases "Insurance with Guaranteed Acceptance. No health questions."
P Tobin saw the 50 Plus ad on TV, got the "appropriate blurb" from the company and went to fill in the form.
"Most people over 50 have health problems so one is obviously interested in an offer where health questions are not asked," P Tobin says.
"I was a little more than taken aback by the first question one is required to answer on the pre-approved enrolment form which is: 'Have you smoked tobacco in the last 12 months?'"
P Tobin reckoned this was a health question, Sovereign though said it was a lifestyle question.
Sovereign acknowledges that the 'no health questions asked' phrase appears contradictory, however it argues the slogan needs to be taken in context of the whole product. That is acceptance is guaranteed. The important point, it says, is that the sum insured applicable to the premiums payable is less for a non-smoker than a smoker.
"The important point is that the client is guaranteed acceptance whether they are a non-smoker or a smoker."
The complaints board, in its written decision, says the phrases "Insurance with Guaranteed Acceptance. No health questions", is clearly two sentences, ostensibly independent of each other.
"The first absolutely guarantees that anyone 50 plus can apply for, and will be accepted for, insurance purposes with no health questions asked. The second, in the board's view, is only taken into account after acceptance and strictly for the purposes of assessing the amount of insurance purchased, for the premiums paid."
It concluded by saying the issue was one of semantics.
While the ad may create confusion in the mind of the consumer, that confusion wasn't deemed to be enough to make the ad misleading.
Consequently the complaint was not upheld.
J Stevenson of the Centre for Psycho-Sociological Development alleged one of the commissioner's ads "promoted political opinion as fact and that the philosophy was confused."
The Advertising Standards Complaints Board did not uphold the complaint and a subsequent appeal was dismissed.
The board said the complaint was with the product, or concept, rather than the advertisement itself.
| « Here come the banks | Get your tax questions answered online » |
Special Offers
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
