Complaint: 17/097

Ryman Healthcare Print

Details

Complainants
advertisers
Ryman Healthcare
Year
2017
Media
Television
Product
Services
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

2017_9700.png

COMPLAINT NUMBER 17/097

COMPLAINANT S Kwasnik ADVERTISER Ryman Healthcare ADVERTISEMENT Ryman Healthcare Print DATE OF MEETING 27 March 2017

OUTCOME No Grounds to Proceed


Advertisement: The Ryman Healthcare full-page newspaper advertisement includes the following text: "At Ryman we understand. Our team has been doing just that for over 30 years... Find out what makes a Ryman village so special, and why 30,000 New Zealanders have chosen to call a Ryman village their home..."

The Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed. Complainant, S Kwasnik, said: I recently sent you an email about the misleading

advertising by Ryman Healthcare. The advert states that "30,000 New Zealanders have

chosen to call Ryman their home." There are 30 Ryman Villages in the country. The very biggest is Edmund Hilary in Auckland which has approx. 800 residents. If in fact the

advertising were true there would be approx. 1,000 in each village!! I find this false advertising.

The relevant provisions were Code of Ethics - Basic Principle 4.

The Chair noted the Complainant's concerns the advertisement was misleading because it could not be possible for 30,000 New Zealanders to be living in Ryman villages in New Zealand.

The Chair agreed that it was very unlikely that 30,000 New Zealanders would currently be living in Ryman villages in New Zealand.

The Chair said it was more likely that the "30,000" refers to the number of people that have been living at Ryman villages since they first opened, in 1984. The Chair noted the advertisement mentions that their team has been around for 30 years.

Therefore, the Chair ruled the advertisement had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and there was no apparent breach of Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.


Chai r' s Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed