Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo's plans to outlaw cigarette vending machines and ban the display of cigarettes in shops are encouraging... so far as they go.
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo's plans to outlaw cigarette vending machines and ban the display of cigarettes in shops are encouraging... so far as they go.
Author of Sort The Bastards!
As a consumer campaigner and journalist, I dearly wanted to put this complaint about US Airways to the airline itself before sharing its shortcomings with the travelling world.
But anyone who's tried to contact US Airways with a complaint will share my frustration at not being able to talk to a human being and being lost, instead, in a maze of obstacles that the cynical among us might think the airline created to prevent us getting redress.
It's a pity, really, because US Airways only launched its service from London Heathrow to Philadelphia a matter of days ago on 29 March and was clearly proud of it, if the press release was anything to judge by.
I was looking forward to my flight, particularly as the press release boasted that US Airways would be using its "flagship international aircraft, the Airbus A330" on the new route.
Flagship it may be, but everything wasn't all right on the flight.
I knew I shouldn’t have accepted Seat 13. It certainly wasn’t lucky. First, it was so close to the seat in front that I couldn’t even open my laptop’s lid, never mind tilt it to the angle I needed to see the screen.
“I’m sorry,” said the stewardess, “but there aren’t any spare seats.”
I protested that it’s a perfectly reasonable requirement to be able to use a laptop on a flight, and that no-one had warned, either verbally or in its advertising, that it wouldn’t be possible.
If I’d known I’d be stuck on a flight for eight hours without being able to write my column, I wouldn’t have flown US Airways.
The stewardess then remembered a seat, 10 rows back and with a splendid view of the back of the toilets. There was plenty of legroom there, admittedly, and there was no problem about using a laptop, either. But it meant leaving my wife 10 rows away and out of sight, when we had booked adjoining seats and wanted to enjoy the flight together.
Before I decamped to the laptop-friendly seat, my wife had another disappointment. The in-flight entertainment system on her seat and mine was malfunctioning and didn’t respond to the remote control. Unless she’d wanted to listen to Spyra Gyra in Spanish for the rest of the flight, it was useless.
The stewardess said she’d restart both of our systems. Ages passed, then eventually both screens went blank and restarted. After what seemed an eternity, my wife’s screen burst into life with, er, Spyra Gyra in Spanish.
“I’m sorry,” said the stewardess when we pointed this out. “There’s nothing we can do.”
Then the meals came around. My wife had booked the vegetarian option, and that’s what she got. I hadn’t ordered the vegetarian option, as I don’t like vegetables, but I was given the vegetarian meal, too.
There wasn’t a single item I could eat. I called the stewardess, pointed out that an error had been made, and asked if I could have a chicken meal like most of my fellow passengers were eating.
“I’m sorry,” said the stewardess, “but you’re down on our list as both wanting the vegetarian option.”
I showed her my booking confirmation e-mail and she agreed it showed that my wife only had ordered the vegetarian option. She said she’d talk to the Purser and see if there were any chicken meals left.
She never returned. Everyone else around me finished their meals, stretched their legs, and waited for the stewardesses to clear their trays.
“Finished?” asked a different stewardess when she came by. I told her I hadn’t even started, as it was the wrong meal and her colleague had been trying to source another one all that time ago.
“I’m sorry,” said the stewardess, “but I think she probably forgot. She’s had all those teas and coffees to serve.”
She asked if I’d like the snack element of the meal instead, “to keep me going”.
She found one and I did manage to eat a bread roll about twice the size of my nose, and a crunchy biscuit that was gorgeous. But I remained the hungriest passenger on the aircraft.
Having been the producer of a TV series about aviation for Discovery Real-Time last year, as well as a journalist who campaigns against poor service and has a consumer self-help manual coming out soon, I confess to being deeply disappointed with my first experience of flying with US Airways.
They don’t warn people that their seats are too close together for them to be able to use their laptops unless they’re the lucky few with a view of the loo; they don’t ensure their in-flight entertainment equipment is working when a passenger is faced with an eight-hour flight without it; and the booking system for their meals leaves something to be desired (ie a meal, in my case).
When I was studying for my Private Pilot’s Licence, things that were not working were described as U/S, an abbreviation for unserviceable.
So which airline was I flying with - US Airways or U/S Airways? Fellow travellers might understand my confusion.
In other circumstances, I’d simply never fly with them again. But, unfortunately for me, I’m booked on the return flight from Philadelphia to London with them.
I’m not looking forward to it. I want to spend those eight hours writing, too, and I’d like my wife to be able to enjoy the same in-flight entertainment that everyone around her was able to. And call me demanding if you wish, but I’d really like to be able to have a meal on board like everyone else.
So that's the complaint. But US Airways doesn't know about it yet due to the minefield of obstacles preventing an aggrieved customer putting a complaint to a real person who could do something about it.
The airline's website doesn't list a phone number for Customer Services, just a fax number and an e-mail option.
I tried ringing Reservations and was eventually, most reluctantly, given an unpublicised number (866-523-5333) for Customer Services. But having held on the line for 22 minutes the first time and 12 minutes the second, it was clear they didn't want to take my call or hear about the problems they'd caused me.
The tedious wait for an answer was punctuated with messages urging people to e-mail Customer Services instead through the website.
But when I tried to do that, as an Englishman holidaying in Miami, the web e-mail form wouldn't allow me to put my UK address into it without chopping vital bits off. Had I been American, no problem, but I'd like to think US Airways cares about its foreign passengers, too.
The media centre in Arizona might have been a good bet if I'd been able to e-mail them. But they don't publicise an e-mail address either, which is pretty unusual in public relations these days. Wonder why?
And all this happened on the airline's flagship international aircraft. If that's the case, what on Earth must it be like on the others?
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
What on Earth possessed Hastings Direct to choose Harry, the animated version of King Harold, as their mascot?
Cute he may be, and his singing of the company's phone number 0800 00 1066 sounds all very avuncular, but it's hard to imagine why an insurance company like Hastings would risk pinning their success on a figure whose leadership skills and achievements can hardly inspire confidence.
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall at the marketing meeting when Harry was chosen!
Did no-one have either the historical knowledge or the courage to point out that Harold lost his eye, his life, and his kingdom in the most catastrophic failure ever to beset this country?
He was, without a doubt, the biggest loser in British history.
Just three little words, uttered at the right time, would have saved Hastings Direct from themselves: "William the Conqueror".
What other gems can we expect if the culprit who thought that one up branches out into other industries? Canute water-repellents? Icarus Airlines? Herod's Kindergartens?
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
The nightmare is nearing an end. ITV's don't-give-a-damn-about-the-viewers reign as the sole provider of Formula One Grand Prix TV coverage to the UK will be over at the end of this season. And not a day too soon.
The commentary and the coverage itself was fine. But ITV showed its utter contempt for viewers by running ad breaks during the live races - a policy that robbed viewers of four hours, six minutes and four seconds of live race action.
That's the equivalent of more than two-and-a-half entire races.
Imagine if ITV had dared to show ads during live football matches - not at half-time, but during the matches themselves. There would have been uproar. But because it was F1, ITV just carried on regardless, more interested in how much it could charge advertisers for airtime than the fact that the ads would ruin the enjoyment of the very programme viewers had tuned in to see.
Shocked by ITV's indifference to its viewers, and by Ofcom's decision to turn a blind eye to ITV's flouting of its own regulations, this blog launched the ITV F1 Ads Campaign and the Formula One Roll of Shame, updated after every race to show which advertisers had decided to buy airtime knowing that it would ruin viewers' enjoyment of the race.
Thanks to this morning's revelation, that campaign is now redundant.
The BBC will be resuming coverage of F1 from next season for at least five years, which will mean uninterrupted overage of every race, as well as live coverage on the web as well.
It feels almost as if a hostile force has agreed to leave and the occupation of the sport we enjoy will be over.
Despite having worked for the BBC for a few months last year - after I launched the campaign, and quite unexpectedly - I've never had anything against ITV or the commercial necessity that it had to sell ads during its F1 programmes.
But it did not need to sell them during the live race itself - and Ofcom should not have allowed it to.
There is media speculation that ITV wasn't attracting enough viewers for its F1 coverage, which is why it decided to give up the contract a year early.
I have no way of telling if that's the case. But if it were true, could the lack of viewers be due to the fact that fans who tuned in to ITV's coverage gave up in disgust - and in their droves - when ITV plonked five ad breaks right in the middle of the races, denying them almost a quarter of an hour of coverage in a sport in which even hundredths of a second make all the difference?
Poetic justice, perhaps.
Sitting here with a stopwatch to time the ad breaks in every single race of last season, sometimes in the very early hours, was hardly fun. But it did expose the magnitude of ITV's contempt for us by compiling, for the first time, statistics detailing the precise amount of race time ITV robbed us of.
As a reminder, here's a race-by-race breakdown of how much we missed of each race last season:
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
Belgium 14 mins 27 secs
Japan 11 mins 20 secs
China 14 mins 21 secs
Brazil 14 mins 24 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST LAST SEASON: 4 hours 06 mins 04 secs!
One man who should take the credit for rescuing Formula One for the fans is Roger Mosey (pictured below), the BBC's Director of Sport. His shrewd negotiations snatched the sport away from ITV and saved it for the nation, without adding a penny to the licence fee.
I doubt if anyone will erect a statue to him, but Roger Mosey has made an even bigger contribution to UK fans' enjoyment of Formula One than Lewis Hamilton did in his astonishing debut.
And I hope we all remember Roger's contribution when the BBC takes over and we get to see Lewis Hamilton racing rather than an ad for Ronseal, or those little ad-break bumpers that tell us that Honda or Sony have sponsored the programme without mentioning that they're simultaneously spoiling it.
Bless you, Roger.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Just noticed that ITV was promising to show live Formula One coverage on its itv-f1.com website this season - a new initiiative that I thought might give some consolation to those of us who object to having our coverage of F1 punctuated with irrelevant TV commercials.
But no such luck. Instead of showing the race on the web without commercials (which would have cost ITV nothing) it simply simulcasts its TV coverage with the ads still in.
An opportunity wasted. And confirmation, if we ever needed it, that ITV has little but contempt for us, its viewers.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
As the countdown begins to today's Australian Grand Prix, viewers of ITV in the UK can look forward to missing more than FOUR HOURS of the live race action this season.
And in a sport in which even hundreds of a second can make all the difference, we can expect to miss a breathtaking 14,764 seconds, if the amount of live race action we were deprived of last season is anything to judge by.
That's because ITV inists on showing TV commercials during the live race action itself, instead of grouping the ads into the two parts of the programme that come before and after the live race.
ITV clearly puts the interests of its advertisers before the interests of mere viewers like us, and advertisers are so determined to put their commercial messages in front of us that they don't seem to realise - or give a damn - that they're spoiling the very event we tuned in to watch.
Elesewhere on this blog you'll see chapter and verse on who the offenders were - and why I believe ITV are in contravention of Ofcom's rules on the showing of ads during live events.
I won't repeat them now, but remember that this blog has produced the world's first comprehensive set of statistics showing precisely how much of each race we fans were cheated out of by ITV.
As a reminder, here's a race-by-race breakdown of how much we missed of each race last season:
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
Belgium 14 mins 27 secs
Japan 11 mins 20 secs
China 14 mins 21 secs
Brazil 14 mins 24 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST LAST SEASON: 4 hours 06 mins 04 secs!
No-one else has ever bothered to sit down with a stopwatch and detail this shameful deprivation of viewers' enjoyment, but I offer it here for the record.
I won't be doing it again this season as the point has been made, but I would urge any fellow fans who care about this to raise the matter with ITV and with Ofcom - and not least with the advertisers who are paying to ruin our pleasure.
Enjoy the season... or at least the bits of it that ITV deign to let you see.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
When a product's recommended by 97% of the readers of a magazine as influential as Marie Claire, we could all be forgiven for rushing out and buying that product, safe in the knowledge that those readers are sophisticated, switched on, and almost unanimous in their endorsement.
But before we choose Pantene Pro-V for precisely that reason, let's take a closer look at that claim.
In a much-aired TV advertisement it says, in large letters on the screen, that 97% of Marie Claire readers would recommend the product to a friend.
In smaller letters at the bottom of the screen (fancy that!) it says that the claim is based on a survey of 304 Marie Claire readers.
In other words, the product isn't recommended by 97% of Marie Claire's readers but by 97% of only 304 of them - ie, a mere 294 readers.
And how many readers does the magazine have?
332,705, according to the latest official returns from the Audit Bureau of Circulation.
Which means that the percentage of Marie Claire readers who actually recommended Pantene Pro-V to their friends was not 97% but a rather less impressive 0.08 of a percent... or less than one reader in every 1,132.
Whatever Pantene might do, the advertising claim simply won't wash.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
If ever we needed proof that ITV is shortchanging viewers by showing randomly-placed adverts during its live coverage of Formula One, it came in today's final race in the world championship.
Lewis Hamilton, the world championship leader, was in sixth place in the Brazilian Grand Prix and fighting hard when his car suddenly ran into problems and he dropped 12 places to 18th in just one lap.
Dramatic. Shocking. Sensational. But we didn't see a single frame of it.
Why not? Because ITV thought we'd rather watch commercial messages from X Box, BMW, Sure, Norwich Union Direct and Vodafone.
Interesting as those companies' offerings might be, we viewers tuned in to watch the live race - and, thanks to their selfishness in buying airtime during the race instead of in the sections of the same programme before and after the race, we missed Hamilton's dramatic change of fortunes.
This is unforgiveable, for several reasons.
First, ITV have no idea what's going to happen next in a race in which anything can happen, and often does.
Secondly, Ofcom is shirking its duty to the viewing public by allowing ITV to get away with showing commercials during the live race coverage.
Ofcom says its own rules allow ITV to show commercials when the focus of the coverage shifts from one part of the event to another.
The specific wording is: In live coverage of long continuous events breaks may be taken at points where the focus of coverage shifts from one point to another of the event for example after a resume of the current placings in a race and before refocusing on a particular section of the race.
As any Formula One fan knows, there are no natural breaks in a Grand Prix race. The focus of the coverage should be total, from start to finish, not shift from one part of a race to another, as there are no "parts".
So there is no point at which the showing of ads could be justified. We know this. Ofcom knows this. And ITV knows this.
Nevertheless, ITV simply gives a rundown of the current positions and goes to an ad break, no doubt crossing its fingers that nothing interesting will happen while it's showing us ads instead of the race action.
This time, those crossed fingers didn't work. Whatever the problem was with Hamilton's car, it happened while we were being entertained by Norwich Union Direct and the rest, so we didn't see it.
Returning to the live race coverage to discover the potential world champion had unaccountably dropped to 18th place and was no longer a serious contender for the title was something that will leave a nasty taste in ITV viewers' mouths for years to come.
In fact, it's hard to be sure whether ITV are actually showing us an hour and a half of TV commercials interrupted by snatches of the Grand Prix, or the other way around.
One of the commentators even criticised the director for looking at exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong moment.
But that's what ITV does when it goes to an ad break while the race is in progress.
In the end, Kimi Raikkonen took the world championship just one point ahead of Lewis Hamilton - a well-deserved victory in this particular race - but those of us who have followed Lewis Hamilton's every move this season cannot help but feel cheated that we were deliberately prevented from watching the moment when the chance of seuring a world championship in his debut season finally eluded him.
ITV needs to re-think its policy, and Ofcom needs to do the decent thing and prevent the broadcaster from spoiling future seasons for us.
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
This season, ITV robbed us of more than two entire races worth of live coverage.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
X Box 360
BMW 1 Series Coupe
Sure
Norwich Union Direct
Vodafone / Lewis Hamilton
Pepsi Max Your Life
Russian Standard Vodka
Snickers
Renault Laguna
Russian Standard Vodka (second offence)
Eon
Sony Ericsson
Tom Tom Go
Saab 9-3
Lynx Dry
Bulmers original
Honda
Rennie Dual Action
Audi R8
Eon (second offence)
Timberland
Fosters Super Chilled
Allure Homme Sport from Chanel
24-7 Football
Coors Light
Honda (second offence)
Direct Line
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
Belgium 14 mins 27 secs
Japan 11 mins 20 secs
China 14 mins 21 secs
Brazil 14 mins 24 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 4 hours 06 mins 04 secs
But who cares?
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Extraordinary scenes in the Chinese Grand Prix - but no thanks whatever to ITV and its ad-break planners that we were actually able to see them.
That, as usual, was left to pure chance.
Lewis Hamilton, tyres balding by the yard, suddenly slipped in the pit lane and ended up in the gravel trap, wheels spinning hopelessly as none of the marshalls could or would push him free.
Hearts around the motor racing world missed a beat as Lewis Hamilton's chances of winning the world championship in this race ticked away until he realised it was all over and climbed out of his stricken car.
But all of that could have happened in an ad break - and we would have missed the lot.
ITV, having no proven powers of clairvoyancy, had no more idea that was going to happen to Lewis Hamilton than the driver himself did, so we could have been watching commercial messages from Norwich Union Direct and The Sunday Telegraph instead of witnessing, live, his shocking exit from the Grand Prix - possibly the decisive moment in the world championship that could hand it to Raikkonen or Alonso.
We didn't miss it - but we could have done. And ITV, presumably, wouldn't have cared... just so long as it filled its coffers with the revenue from the ads. After all, that's much more important than letting viewers see the live race action they tuned in to see, isn't it?
Now we'll have to wait until the Brazilian Grand Prix in a fortnight to see who'll be the World Champion - but will there be a decisive moment in that race, and how do ITV know when it might be?
They won't, of course, so we could see the Formula One World Championship decided in an ad break with viewers who tuned in to watch a live race having to see that decisive moment in flashback!
This time we missed Ralf Schumacher's collision and spin in ad-break three, so it's no good convincing ourselves that these things don't happen.
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than two entire races worth of live coverage (details here) - and there's still one race to go this season.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Bridgestone
Santander / Abbey
Vodafone / Lewis Hamilton
San Miguel
Lexus Hybrid Drive
Bulmers Original Born For Ice
The Sunday Telegraph
BT - bt.com/business
Norwich Union Direct
X-box 360
Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Rendition
Norwich Union Direct (second offence)
Orange
MPH - mphshow.co.uk
Ladbrokes
NatWest
T-Mobile Top-Up Friday
Peugeot 308 - Inspired by nature.
Direct Line
Allure Homme Sport from Chanel
Fosters Super Chilled
Guinness
BetFair www.betfair.com
World from Mastercard
BMI
Norwich Union (third offence)
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
Belgium 14 mins 27 secs
Japan 11 mins 20 secs
China 14 mins 21 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 3 hours 51 mins 40 secs
But who cares?
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
People flogging alcohol in direct contravention of eBay's rules must be tempted to drink a toast to the online auction site's apparent willingness to turn a blind eye to their activities.
eBay says, very clearly, that alcohol must not be sold through its site because it's a prohibited item.
Yet bottles of Champagne, for instance, are frequently listed on eBay with apparent impunity.
The sellers know they mustn't do it, so they pretend that it's actually the bottle the Champagne's in that makes it valuable and the fact it happens to contain alcohol is merely coincidental.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink... and eBay says no more.
Here's an extract from eBay's rules:
eBay does not permit the sale of alcoholic beverages, except for certain sales of collectable containers. Further, non-UK members may not conduct alcohol sales with any eBay member residing in the United Kingdom.Breaches of this policy may result in a range of actions, including:
Listing cancellation
Limits on account privileges
Account suspension
Forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings
Loss of PowerSeller statusWhy does eBay have this policy?
eBay wants to ensure its sellers and buyers comply with their legal obligations. Since the sale of certain alcoholic products is prohibited by law, regulated, or may cause harm to eBay or its members, sellers may not list the specified alcoholic products on eBay.
Look, then, at an item being listed at time of writing - item number 16016424161.
It's described, somewhat semi-literately, thus:
3 litre bottle Moet Et Chandon Jereboam Champagne full. This auction is for a Jereboam bottle of Moet Et Chandon. Its 3 litres and is the equivalent of 4 regular bottles of Moet. It has been stored correctly in my cellar for the past 18 months so should be in A1 condition. To not breach eBay rules the value is in the collectable bottle, not its contents as I cannot list alcohol on eBay.
This is nonsense. The seller knows it, prospective buyers know it and eBay knows it. Or at least, eBay should know it, because I've reported it to them as a prohibited item.
But that was more than 48 hours ago. And the item's still there, gathering bids.
Are the bidders offering so much money for an empty bottle? Unlikely, because display bottles (sealed but empty bottles of Champagne) do not fetch anything like the money being offered for this item.
Could it be that they're bidding so much because the bottle is, as admitted by the vendor, full of Champagne?
And if, as the vendor says, the value is "in the collectable bottle, not its contents", why does he tell us that it's been stored correctly in his cellar for 18 months. If the alcohol inside was so unimportant and not a factor in the sale, its condition would be irrelevant.
So what became of the report I made to eBay through the proper channel?
Not a lot, it seems. The automated replies reporters receive includes the following get-out clause: "Please be aware that, as it's important that eBay maintains member privacy, we can't share details of the action we take."
So that's all right then...
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
With the millions being spent on promoting the new Samsung G600 camera phone, and the millions O2 spend on creating and maintaining their public image as one of the best mobile phone companies to do business with, readers might find the following a trifle extraordinary, to say the least.
All my wife and I wanted to do was to upgrade our old mobiles to the Samsung G600 with its five megapixel camera.
The O2 shop gave us hope. You should be able to get the G600 for free, the man said. The hope proved to be a false one. He came back and said the tariffs we were on meant we'd have to pay £129.99 each for the phones.
He suggested trying O2 customer service over the phone as they might be able to offer a better deal.
It sounded easy. Just dial the number, speak to customer services, and ask if they could do a free upgrade.
Not so. The first time I rang, I waited for six minutes while the recorded message reminded me, frequently, how important my call was to them.
Eventually, I heard another ringing tone and my call connected. Only no-one spoke to me. I could hear background noises of people chattering away at the call centre, but no-one seemed to be able to hear me.
Or perhaps they didn't wish to.
Frustrated, I rang off and went through the entire process again. Four minutes this time - and exactly the same thing happened.
After two more attempts, I finally found myself speaking to someone.
She assured me that we didn't qualify for a free upgrade to a G600, even though we'd both been loyal long-time O2 customers for years and hadn't upgraded or asked for any other benefits for years.
As everyone knows that phone companies have retentions departments whose sole purpose is to offer customers better deals to prevent them leaving and taking their business to a direct competitor, I asked her if she would put me through.
She, however, was having none of it. She told me, unequivocally, that O2 did not have a retentions department.
I protested that O2 did, but she was adamant.
I told her that I knew the retentions department existed and that I wanted to be put through.
Nevertheless, she insisted the department was a figment of my imagination.
Patience wearing thinner, I asked to speak to her manager, as I didn't believe what she was telling me about the alleged non-existence of the retentions department.
This seemed to do the trick. Without missing a beat, she informed me that she was going to put me through to the retentions department after all.
Anyone with an ethic to subscribe to would have found that a difficult leap to make - from repeated and absolute denials that a department even exists, to an offer to put you through to it moments later.
But not her. First she told me the line was busy. Then, as she tried to put me through, I hung on for 13 minutes before the line went dead and I was cut off again.
Undaunted, I rang again and, perhaps fortunately, was answered by one of her colleagues who didn't try to deny the existence of the retentions department but put me right through to it.
The chap I spoke to couldn't explain why she should have lied to me so brazenly and repeatedly. He agreed that the retentions department did exist - after all, he worked for it - and he was a lot more helpful. But he checked the system and confirmed that we did not qualify for a free upgrade to a G600 but would have to pay almost £260 between us.
I thought that was a little parsimonious, bearing in mind our loyalty and the minimal demands we had made on the service over the years. But he wouldn't budge.
I asked to speak to his manager.
She was similarly pleasant, but again wouldn't give an inch on the matter of the upgrade.
That was fair enough, as it's a commercial decision for O2 whether it wants to reward trouble-free and loyal customers or not.
Beyond asking nicely, I couldn't argue with her decision.
But then she astonished me.
Blissfully unaware that I was an investigative journalist and author of the forthcoming self-help consumer manual Sort The Bastards! - a guide to dealing with the fobbers-off of this world, and others who try to do us down at every turn - the manager mistoook me for a mere O2 customer... and treated me accordingly.
That, presumably, is why she switched tactics and tried to put me off wanting the phone in the first place.
I listened, amazed, as the manager of the retentions department at one of the UK's most reputable mobile phone companies used childlike psychology to try to convince me that the Samsung G600 wasn't all it was cracked up to be in the multi-million-pound advertising campaign being run by Samsung and endorsed by O2.
The picture quality isn't that good, she told me. The reviews were bad, she said. In fact, she suggested, I'd be better off buying a digital camera if I wanted to take pictures. The sound quality on voice calls wasn't up to much, either, she claimed. And so she went on.
I began to feel sorry for Samsung. They create what appears to be one of the best-looking, best-equipped camera phones on the market and spend a fortune promoting it, only for one of the senior people in O2 to badmouth it in a futile attempt to kill a potential customer's dream of owning one.
As I don't believe in rushing into print without giving companies a fair chance to comment, I approached O2's press office to ask if they'd care to offer a quote for the end of this posting on my blog.
The nice woman in the press office seemed (as I would have expected) astonished that a customer had been treated in such a way. She e-mailed back the next day saying she'd arranged for someone in customer services to contact me that day "to remedy the situation" – whatever that meant.
He didn't call.
Back to the press office, where the woman was embarrassed that the man hadn't kept his promise to ring.
Shortly afterwards, he did.
But whatever "remedy" the press office had had in mind, it certainly hadn't been mentioned to him.
He spent some time telling me what I already knew (ie that O2 didn't usually give free G600 upgrades to people on our tariff) but went on to hint that he didn't entirely believe me anyway.
Despite the messages warning customers that incoming calls to O2 are recorded "for security and training purposes" he said that none of the conversations I'd had with any of his colleaues had been taped, so there was no evidence.
He seemed pleased about that.
I wasn't. I'd rather been hoping that O2 would have been able to play back the tapes and find out what it's like being on the other end of the phone when you're just a customer. But it wasn't to be.
He looked at the computer records and, to my astonishment, told me that the first woman I'd spoken to – the one who had lied about the non-existence of the retentions department – had noted that my call to her had been abusive.
As someone who has never been abusive to anyone on a phone in my life, and was also conscious that the call was supposedly being recorded, I couldn't believe she would have made such a defamatory entry on the call log. Mr Remedy didn't seem to realise the gravity of what his colleague had done.
I explained that as I had not shouted, threatened, sworn or called her or O2 names, my call could not possibly have been classed as abusive.
Yes, I was assertive. I was persistent. And I challenged the veracity of what she was saying when she lied about the non-existence of the retentions department. But that is not abuse.
The fact that she probably didn't like someone standing up to her and refusing to be fobbed off by
someone lying on behalf of the company wasn't abuse, either. But that's what she called it on the log.
What a shame the recording couldn't be found, as it would have revealed that I was polite but firm while she was determined to fob me off by telling barefaced lies.
So that's customer service in the 21st Century, O2 style.
How many other customers have been treated in this way?
What have Samsung done to deserve this?
And can anyone out there recommend another phone company that treats its customers with even a little more respect than that?
And what was O2's comment on all this? After ignoring my communications for more than a week, the woman in the press office finally came back tonight to say she didn't wish to comment, but she indicated that she had to believe what she'd been told by her colleagues in customer services.
I wonder if her faith in them will be shared by people thinking of buying a phone from O2?
Just spotted a web page from O2 that contains the following boast: "Our strategy is to turn our customers into fans by giving them an experience that cannot be matched elsewhere."
Priceless!
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Thanks to divine intervention rather than any restraint by ITV or its advertisers, we Formula One fans didn't miss as much of the race action as usual during this year's Japanese Grand Prix.
That's only because the first 19 laps, including the start of the race, were an organised procession behind the Safety Car in surely the most appalling conditions most drivers will ever have experienced, with torrential rain, mist, and ever-present clouds of spray.
This gave ITV the chance to screen several ad breaks in a row, knowing that - just for once - there wouldn't be much live race action for us to miss.
Nevertheless, we still missed 11 minutes and 20 seconds of the race.
At least we couldn't complain that this race lacked incident! There was an accident in the first lap after the Safety Car came in; Mark Webber was sick inside his helmet; Sato's car caught fire as he left the pits, only for the driving rain to put it out; Alonso crashed out; Vettel took himself and Webber out just as they appeared to be in line for a podium; and Lewis Hamilton survived to win despite being whacked into a spin by Kubica.
The total live race coverage we've lost so far this season is three hours, 37 minutes and 19 seconds - a scandal that ought to be as important to race fans as anything that's gone on in the McLaren spygate episode (more details here).
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than two entire races worth of live coverage (details here) - and there are still two races to go this season.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Carlsberg
Mercedes-Benz C-Class
The Heartbreak Kid
Honda
Vodafone - Make The Most Of Now
Citroen C4
BT Total Broadband
Saab 9-3
Lynx
OO7 Spycard Collection
Danone Actimel
Lynx (second offence)
Norwich Union
Lexus Hybrid Drive
Lloyds TSB
Peugeot 308 - Inspired By Nature
Carlsberg (second offence)
Orange Speakeasy
Norwich Union (second offence)
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
Belgium 14 mins 27 secs
Japan 11 mins 20 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 3 hours 37 mins 19 secs
But who cares?
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
The Nationwide Building Society prides itself on having the interests of its members at heart - but how much does it care about the planet those members live on?
Not a lot, judging by the way the society has handled its merger with the Portman Building Society.
Portman members have all received windfall payouts of at least £160 this week after voting for the merger, so they're naturally pleased about that.
But Nationwide members were not quite so thrilled to find Northern Rock-like queues outside their branches as crowds of Portman members all tried to close their accounts and bank their windfall cheques.
Having spent almost an hour in a queue myself, I was astonished to learn of the procedure Nationwide has adopted for closing Portman accounts or transferring the balance to Nationwide accounts.
It ought to have been simple to close my Portman account and either withdraw the funds or transfer them into my existing Nationwide account.
But no. The cashier assured me, apologetically, that the only way to close the redundant Portman account was to set up a new Nationwide account first, transfer the funds into it, then close it again.
I watched, incredulous, as the cashier produced a new Nationwide passbook identical to the one I already had, filled in my details, ran it through the printer to show that the balance from the Portman had been transferred into it, then closed the new Nationwide account, using a rubber stamp to print Cancelled on every page.
The new Nationwide account, and its passbook, had enjoyed a life cycle of approximately one minute!
With 1.2 million Portman members in the same circumstances, and each passbook having 12 pages plus the cover, all needing printing and rubber-stamping, that's an awful lot of trees sacrificed entirely unnecessarily.
Companies try so hard to impress us with their green credentials and efforts to reduce their carbon footprints, yet Nationwide has just begun the fastest, least defensible example of corporate squandering of our environmental resources in recent history.
What will Friends Of The Earth say?
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Remember... you saw it here first.
F1 fans lost 14 minutes and 27 seconds of the Belgian Grand Prix today due to insensitive advertisers who bought airtime during the live race coverage on ITV.
The total live race coverage we've lost so far this season is three hours, 25 minutes and 59 seconds - a scandal that ought to be as important to race fans as anything that's gone on in the McLaren spygate episode (more details here).
Today's most irritating advertising slogan has to be Virgin Trains' "Love every second".
Yes, Sir Richard, we fans do love every second of the race. So why did you plonk your advert right in the middle of it and force us to miss precious seconds of the race we love?
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than two entire races worth of live coverage (details here) - and the season isn't even over yet.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Toyota Auris
Monster.co.uk
Directline.com
Vodafone / Lewis Hamilton
AXA PPP Healthcare
Allure Homme Sport from Chanel
The new Saab 9-3
Esure / Michael Winner
British Gas
Monster.co.uk (second offence)
Virgin Trains / Love Every Second
Right Guard
eBay.co.uk
PC World
Recyclenow.com
Orbit Complete
HSBC's Premier Service
Norwich Union Direct
Volvo XC70
Honda
Airwaves Black Mint
Mercedes-Benz
British Gas (second offence)
BT
Sainsbury's Car Insurance
Ford Focus Zetec Climate
Carlsberg
Recyclenow.com (second offence)
Scottish Widows
Michelin
Norwich Union Direct (second offence)
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
Belgium 14 mins 27 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 3 hours 25 mins 59 secs
But who cares?
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
McLaren have been fined a breathtaking £49.2 million for misappropriating Ferrari's secrets - but that isn't the only F1 scandal we should be concerned about.
The other Formula One scandal has barely received a mention, yet it also involves millions of pounds, behind-the-scenes deals, and a callous disregard for the millions of fans whose enjoyment of Grand Prix motor racing is being systematically spoiled as a result.
How strange it should have received so little publicity.
The scandal I'm referring to is the fact that, so far this season, ITV viewers have been deliberately deprived of the equivalent of more than two entire races' worth of live coverage.
That's not a misprint. With four races still to go, we mere viewers (though we are the people who keep ITV in business) have missed an astonishing three hours 11 minutes and 32 seconds of live race action in which even a hundredth of a second can make the difference to the world championship.
That's an awful lot of hundredths of seconds that ITV and its greedy advertisers didn't care that we missed.
So why do they do it?
Simply, because they can. And because Ofcom, which is supposed to be the watchdog, lets them get away with it.
As the advertisers are paying huge amounts of money to grab our attention, interest us in their products or services, and buy our loyalty, you'd think they'd want to do everything they could to avoid upsetting us.
But no. Instead of buying advertising airtime in the two long stretches of programme before and after the live race, they deliberately buy slots that will interrupt the race at random intervals with no possible way of predicting what we viewers will be missing as a direct result of their insensitivity.
They will continue to get away with it for some time to come, because we fans don't do anything about it.
We continue to buy their products and services, even though they are routinely spoiling the very programmes we tuned in to watch.
It doesn't happen during live football matches, because there would be an outcry. It doesn't happen at events at which Royalty are present, because that's against the rules. But it happens five times in every Grand Prix race, because we fans don't do anything about it and are seen (perhaps rightly) as a pushover.
If we wrote to the companies that buy adverts during the live races and told them we would be withdrawing our custom until they made a pledge to stop doing so, they would have to listen. After all, there's no point advertising if it upsets the very people that you are trying to impress and persuade.
But how many of us have actually done so?
Nobody has even bothered to quantify the problem until now. Call me an anorak if you like, but I've spent every race this season timing the ad breaks and noting the names of the advertisers to produce the online F1 Advertisers Roll Of Shame - the first full set of statistics to reveal just how serious this problem really is.
If you share my belief that the advertisers are wrong to buy space during the live races (see full argument here) then why not do something about it?
Contact the media, contact the F1 forums... and, most importantly, make your views known to the companies that are buying those adverts.
Send them a link to this site, and forward it to everyone you know who cares about Formula One. If you don't, you'll be forever wondering how the race is going while you're watching another two minutes and 54 seconds of commercial messages about Ronseal fence treatments or Norwich Union Direct... five times every race.
And if you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Alonso might well have been the winner of the Italian Grand Prix at Monza... but we, the ITV viewers, have been the losers throughout this season.
Thanks to insensitive advertisers who didn't care if they ruined our enjoyment of the races by buying advertising airtime during the live race itself, we have now missed the equivalent of more than two entire Formula One races so far this season.
This is an astonishing statistic that has never been revealed before, because on-one has bothered (as I have) to sit down and time the ad breaks for every single race.
If anyone had done so before, there would have been an outcry from F1 fans who suddenly realised just how much of their races they had been cheated out of by advertisers who were, incredibly, trying to impress them with their services or products at the same time as spoiling the very races they were tuning in to see.
This is absolutely scandalous.
We have seen 13 races of just over an hour-and-a-half each, yet ITV and its advertisers have actually deprived us of more than three full hours of live race time. And the season isn't even finished yet.
But perhaps we F1 fans are a walkover and don't really care that ITV and these advertisers hold us in such contempt?
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than two entire races worth of live coverage (details here) - and the season isn't even over yet.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Vodafone / Lewis Hamilton
Norwich Union Direct
HSBC International Premier Service
Tiscali Broadband
Volvo XC70
Honda
VW Passat
Norwich Union Direct (second offence)
PC World
Santander Bank / Abbey
Airwaves Black Mint
Philips / robotskin.com
Brylcreem
Confused.com
Mazda 2
Citroen C4
Carlsberg
Norwich Union Direct (third offence)
Allure Homme Sport from Chanel
Churchill.com
Smirnoff
Jeep Patriot
Scottish Widows
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 3 hours 11 mins 32 secs
But who cares?
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
A dull Grand Prix, unless any of the exciting bits occurred while we, ITV's viewers, were forced to watch the adverts while the live race continued out of our sight.
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than an entire race worth of live coverage (details here) - and that's likely to double to the equivalent of two whole races by the end of the season.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Honda
Vodafone / Lewis Hamilton / Make The Most Of Now
Robot Skin / Philips
The Times / The Game
Freelander 2
San Miguel
Right Guard 24hr Time-Release Protection
Sky Sports
Moneysupermarket.com
Chrysler Sebring
Lynx Snake Peel Exfoliating Scrub
Go Green / PowerGen
Strongbow
BT Vision
Ford Focus Zetec Climate
Smirnoff
Deep Freeze Cold patch
Fiat Bravo
Nationwide
Carlsberg Pub Teams
DelPrado
Airwaves Black Mint
Renault Clio
Abbey / Santander / Lewis Hamilton
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 2 hours 57 mins 04 secs
But who cares?
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
I could have been dreaming, of course, but I'm pretty sure I was wide awake when I walked into Tesco at Roborough in Plymouth at one o'clock in the morning recently.
The doubts only persist because, having finished my shopping, I found that the only three checkouts open were unattended but marked as Self Service.
A nearby supervisor explained that I had to scan all the items myself, put them on the conveyor belt, then pack them.
Astonished, I asked if I would receive a discount, as the price of the items already included the cost of staffing yet I was being forced to work as a checkout operator myself.
No chance, apparently.
Having spent 29 years in the workplace trying to avoid working as a checkout operator, I was given a crash course by the supervisor who was helpful (but not helpful enough to sit there and scan my items herself).
Some items wouldn't be scanned, whatever I did; the machine barked orders at me, telling me to do it faster or slower; and it was constantly scolding me to take particular items off the conveyor belt.
One item didn't scan but made it to the other end of the conveyor belt before the machine deigned to notice. But we couldn't be sure which item it was that we hadn't paid for.
I called the supervisor again and she said that if I thought she was going to go through my many bags of shopping to find out which item had slipped through, I had another think coming.
I protested that I did wish to pay for everything, but the machine wouldn't let me - and I didn't want to be stopped at the door and detained for trying to leave with goods I hadn't paid for.
She told me not to worry, as it was more trouble than it was worth to go back through all the transactions to find the item.
But I did leave with one more thing - a feeling of resentment that a store as immensely profitable as Tesco could get away with forcing customers to become checkout operators themselves and suffer the embarrassment of being remonstrated with by a machine that had such an inflexible and domineering attitude.
If Tesco expect us to do the job ourselves, they should include a heavy discount on the goods to reflect the fact that they're not having to pay a human to do the job we customers expect them to do.
Unless they're cynically exploiting us and simply don't care about their customers at that time of the morning...
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Shame on Setanta Sports for showing not one, not two, but three commercials during ITV's live race coverage of the Hungarian Grand Prix.
As a company that is encouraging people to pay to view its own sports coverage, isn't it just breathtakingly insensitive to drum up awareness of its offerings by deliberately ruining the enjoyment of Formula One fans on three separate occasions during the same live race?
I trust Formula One fans will bear this in mind if they are considering signing up for the Setanta service. A few pointed questions to the sales staff or even to the head office of Setanta might make them aware of their culpability and begin to change things.
Here's Setanta's UK contacts if you wish to make your feelings known:
Setanta UK
4th Floor
8 Waterloo Place
London SW1Y 4 BE
Phone: 08700 50 69 80
setantauk@setanta.com
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than an entire race worth of live coverage (details here) - and that's likely to double to the equivalent of two whole races by the end of the season.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Ford / New Mondeo
Setanta Sports
Npower.com
Vodafone / Lewis Hamilton
Honda
Sainsbury's Car Insurance
Nivea For Men / Extra Soothing Aftershave Balm
Eon / Wind Of Change
Level Crossings: Don't Run The Risk
Just For Men / Right On Target
Chevrolet Captiva
San Miguel
MoneySupermarket.com
Setanta Sports (second offence)
Ford Focus
Reserve Tank / Orange
Allure Homme Sport from Chanel
Strongbow Total First Pint Refreshment
Wilkinson Sword Quattro Titanium Energy
Setanta Sport (third offence)
Powergen / Go Green
Renault Clio Ripcurl
NatWest / Another Way
Jeep Grand Cherokee
BT Vision
Think! Don't Drink And Drive
Just For Men / Right On Target (second offence)
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungarian 14 mins 20 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 2 hours 33 mins 41 secs
But who cares?
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Just awoke from a nightmare that Ferdinand Alonso might have persuaded the organisers of today's Hungarian Grand Prix to start the race three hours early at 10am, thus ensuring he'd win without the bother of having to overtake any of those pesky competitors.
Fortunately, it turned out to be nothing more than a bad dream... and now he'll have to fight his way back to victory - if not respectability - from sixth place.
Watch this space today for the latest update of the F1 Advertisers Roll Of Shame - the only site on the web that tells you how much of each race we've missed due to selfish advertisers buying advertising airtime during the live race itself rather than in the parts of the programme before and after it.
Full statistics will appear on this blog within 10 minutes of the chequered flag. Don't miss it. If you haven't been a regular reader of the ITV Stop The Spoilsports campaign, you'll be astonished at how much of the races we've missed so far this season.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Lewis Hamilton is often accused of being a lucky driver, though it should be pointed out that the harder he works, the luckier he gets.
But his luck was mixed this weekend at the European Grand Prix at the Nurburgring.
Having crashed on Saturday but emerged from the wreckage unscathed, Lewis was one of half a dozen Formula One drivers who aquaplaned off the track during the race way beyond any hope of recovery in the furthest reaches of the gravel trap.
Race over, we all thought. But no. A crane turned up a few seconds later and hoisted his car aloft with him still in it before plonking it back on to the track so he could continue.
Incredible as it might seem, and astonishing as it was to watch, this was apparently allowed purely because Lewis kept his engine running.
This must have been puzzling to the other drivers, scattered all around him, who were simply left to their fate as the F1 World Championship leader whizzed off in a cloud of spray.
The excuse given was that Lewis's car had ended up in a dangerous place. But so were the other cars who'd come off on the same corner. So why was he favoured?
It was unfortunate for him to have been out of the race so early - and it would have been a loss to viewers - but that's what F1 is about: unpredictability. Which is why ad breaks in the middle of live action are such a disgrace.
Ralf Schumacher skidded off later into a gravel trap - also in a dangerous place - and a crane rumbled up seconds later. But it didn't helpfully lift him back on to the track so he could continue. So why didn't he receive the same assistance as Lewis Hamilton did?
Another astonishing sight was Lewis being allowed to overtake the Safety Car to unlap himself in what was certainly the most extraordinary and exciting race for years!
Then he pitted and switched to dry tyres while clouds of spray were still flying up all around the course.
But he paid the price by spinning off seconds later at the Dunlop curve.
New face Winkelhock even led the race in a Spyker on his Formula One debut, though soon lost it after the red-flag restart, and victory eventually went to Alonso after some edge-of-the-seat driving that certainly merited his podium place.
Remark of the day, though, went to the ITV F1 commentator who said, while the race was red-flagged and in suspension:
"It seems to me like a very good time to go to a break, Boys, so we miss less of the action."
Do you think he's been reading this blog, by any chance, or has a tweak of conscience every time he sees the latest update of the F1 Advertisers Roll Of Shame?
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
We viewers of the European Grand Prix from the Nurburgring missed less of the live race action than usual this time - but that was no thanks to ITV.
We can thank a higher authority for that... and I don't mean Ofcom.
We could almost have been in flooded Hull for a while as the Heavens opened and one car after another aquaplaned off the track, resulting in the first red-flagging for years and a suspension that added an extra half hour to the race.
That gave ITV the rare opportunity to shows its ads during a time in which the cars had actually stopped racing - and few fans would argue with that.
But the fact remains that the downpour and race suspension was an unpredictable event, and we all know that ITV would cheerfully have run the ads during the hotly-contested race itself without a single thought for we mere viewers who buy the products and services that the spoilsport advertisers are pushing.
Ironically, one of the ads, for Mercedes-Benz, exploits the alleged rivalry between Alonso and Hamilton and is actually very well produced, very funny, and very entertaining. But has it not occurred to M-B that we fans would prefer to see their rivalry live on the track rather than in an advert that is depriving of of the chance to see what the two F1 rivals are up to out there?
Mercedes-Benz really ought to know better.
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than an entire race worth of live coverage (details here) - and that's likely to double to the equivalent of two whole races by the end of the season.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Honda
Iveco Stralis Trucks / All Blacks
Renault Clio RipCurl
www.escotsounds.com / concerts
Vodafone
Carling Black Label
Wilkinson Sword Quattro Titanium
Ford Mondeo
Bulmers Original Born For Ice
Orange Gigs & Tours
Think! Don't Drink And Drive
Peugeot 207 SW - The Drive Of Your Life
Powergen
Santander / Abbey / Lewis Hamilton spraying Champagne
Allure Homme Sport from Chanel
San Miguel
Right Guard 24-Hour Time Release Protection - www.24hourman.co.uk
Mercedes-Benz - Lewis Hamilton and Ferdinand Alonso rivalry
BT Vision
NatWest
Jeep Patriot
AA
Deep Freeze Cold Patch
Fosters Super Chilled
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 2 hours 19 mins 21 secs
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
The fortunate F1 fans who watched the British Grand Prix live from Silverstone at any one of 30 Vue Cinemas in the UK today didn't know what they were missing - so let's hope this update of the F1 Advertisers Roll Of Shame will compensate for their loss.
While the Vue Few were watching Lewis Hamilton whizzing around in a vain attempt to stay in front of Kimi Raikkonen, we ITV viewers were treated to almost a quarter of an hour of TV commercials informing us about Iveco trucks (much more interesting than live F1 coverage?), BK Fusions ice cream, deodorants, alcohol, mobiles, and insurance.
The Vue Few can see a complete list of the TV commercials they missed below, though I hope it doesn't put them off from attending any future live screenings of Grand Prix once they realise the delights they missed out on.
The one that must have upset them the most was the Abbey / Santander Bank commercial trumpetting their sponsorship of Lewis Hamilton, and even showing him spraying a bottle of Champagne from a podium.
No doubt the bank thought that was far more important for the fans and their prospective customers than letting us see Lewis actually driving around the track during the live race itself.
I trust F1 fans everywhere will remember this next time they want a financial product or wish to open a bank account.
As regular readers know, this is the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than an entire race worth of live coverage (details here) - and that's likely to double to the equivalent of two whole races by the end of the season.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
CompareTheMarket.com insurance
Carling Black Label
PowerGen / Go Green
BK Fusions ice cream
Chevrolet Captiva
Iveco Stralis Trucks / All Blacks
Panasonic Viera
Right Guard 24-hr
Renault Clio RipCurl
Morrisons
T-Mobile Flext
L'Oreal Men Expert
Eon
Magners Irish Cider
Hastings Direct / www.hastingsdirect.com
Lexus
Honda
VW Golf
HSBC
Vodafone
San Miguel
02
Lynx Vice
Abbey / Santander featuring Lewis Hamilton
Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 2 hours 5 mins 1 sec
If you really do care about this loss of enjoyment, please sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
F1 fans who object to being robbed of a quarter of an hour of live action by ITV and its insensitive advertisers at every Formula One race now have an alternative... at least for this weekend's British Grand Prix.
Vue Cinemas are screening the entire race, live and without interruption, on Sunday at 30 cinemas around the UK.
It will be on the big screen, in HD, with fantastic sound - and not an advert to spoil things.
To add to the sense of occasion, rather than detract from it as ITV manages to do, Vue's screenings will include a live commentary by Jonathan Palmer and an exclusive 10-minute pre-race interview with Murray Walker and Lewis Hamilton.
While we will have to pay for our tickets, of course, this will be the first time this season that we've been able to see an entire race from start to finish.
As readers of this site will know, ITV has so far robbed us of the equivalent of more than an entire F1 race - and as we're only halfway through the season, we'll be losing the equivalent of a second race, too.
Perhaps no-one other than me has been sad enough to sit down with a stopwatch and time all the ad breaks in ITV's coverage before, but that might explain the revelation, brought to you exclusively here, that we have lost more than an entire race worth of live action so far with that likely to double by the end of the season.
You can read about that here and see previous postings about the ITV F1 Ads Campaign here.
Tickets for the event on Sunday 8th July are available from www.myvue.com or by calling 08712 240 240 or directly from participating cinemas.
Only 7,000 seats are available at £15 each. All Vue ticket holders receive a free official race program which normally costs £10 plus a soft drink and popcorn, the press release says.
Can't go myself, of course, as I shall be sitting here with my stopwatch recording ITV's crimes against sports coverage so that we will all have reliable statistics for the entire season.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Welcome to the latest update of the F1 Advertisers Roll Of Shame - the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
So far this season, ITV has robbed us of more than an entire race worth of live coverage (details here) - and that's likely to double to the equivalent of two whole races by the end of the season.
This time, in the French Grand Prix, Santander / Abbey even had the cheek to show us a clip of Lewis Hamilton spraying Champagne in a re-enacted win sequence... while the great man himself was busy fighting Massa and Raikkonen for a track position, unseen by those of us who were desperately wanting to watch every second of it.
How insensitive for a company that sponsors an F1 driver to show an advert puffing their sponsorship during the live race!
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Voadfone
The Police Double CD Collection
Lynx Vice
Nationwide
Honda Asimo honda.co.uk
Iveco Stralis Truck / All Blacks
Heineken Premium Continental Bier
Jeep Patriot / www.jeep.co.uk
Orange
Allure Homme Sport / Chanel
Chevrolet Captiva / www.chevrolet.co.uk
Churchill Car Insurance / www.churchill.com
Airwaves
Digital UK
Fosters Superchilled
Carling Black Label / Circuit Boards
Santander Bank / Abbey
BT Total Broadband
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Magners Irish Cider
Eon
Sky+ Box / www.sky.com
Hastings Direct /www.hastingsdirect.com
Renault Clio Ripcurl
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 1 hour 50 mins 32 secs
If Formula One fans really do care about this loss of enjoyment (and I'm beginning to wonder) I would encourage more people to sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Much as domain names with hyphens in them usually look second-rate and are often chosen in desperation because the unhyphenated domain has already been taken, there are rare circumstances in which the addition of a hyphen might just be a little better.
Take, for instance, the domain www.therapists.com. It's a perfectly respectable website, but the choice of domain name is extremely unfortunate as the lack of spaces between words makes it impossible to tell, before we look at the site itself, whether it's meant to be Therapists or The Rapists.
That's no laughing matter, but you would think people would be a little more careful with their marketing, wouldn't you?
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
It had to happen. The unfortunate omisson of apostrophes from the range of characters permitted in domain names means the resulting run-together words can appear ambiguous.
Today's example of a domain name that can be read two ways - and who am I to guess which is correct? - is the following: www.sainsburyswine.co.uk
Do they mean Sainsbury's Wine... or Sainsbury Swine?
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Incredible as it might sound, ITV have deprived viewers of the equivalent of an entire Formula One Grand Prix - so far - and we're only seven races into the season.
It's easy for fans to moan about ad breaks spoiling the races, but it's only when we put it into context that we can see just how breathtaking this theft of viewers' enjoyment really is.
As the only site on the web that monitors and publishes all of the ad breaks in all of the races, Stop The Spoilsports! can reveal that the total amount of live race coverage stolen from us by uncaring ITV and its "greed first, viewers second" advertisers so far this season is 1 hour, 36 minutes and 3 seconds... the equivalent of an entire F1 race!
Full details are listed separately for each race under the heading "F1 Advertisers Roll Of Shame" etc.
Readers who share our shock at this revelation might care to sign the Downing Street petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/... unless, of course, no-one's really bothered.
Meanwhile, the only way to discourage these advertisers from spoiling our races for us is to lobby them, write to them direct, and tell them we won't buy their products or use their services if they continue to spoil our sport.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Welcome to the latest update of the F1 Advertisers Roll Of Shame - the only site on the web that gives a full listing of all the advertisers who thought we'd be more interested in hearing about their services and products than in the Formula One Grand Prix itself.
Every race, this site lists the offending advertisers, the amount of the live race they've deprived us of, plus the total race time we've been robbed of so far this season.
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Honda
Heineken Premium Continental Bier
Vodafone
Lloyds TSB / The Black Horse / Airmiles
Hastings Direct (www.hastingsdirect.com)
Ford C-Max
Iveco Stralis
iPod and iTunes
Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Fosters Super Chilled
Lexus 220d
Kaiser Chiefs / Yours Truly, Angry Mob
Direct Line
Magners Irish Cider
Allure Homme Sport / Chanel
Bulmers Original
Halifax Home Insurance
AA
Daily Mail / Danielle Steele DVDs
Renault Clio RipCurl
Ronseal Power Sprayer
L'Oreal Men Expert Vitalift
Network Rail / Level Crossings - Don't Run The Risk
Alfa Romeo 159
Carling Black Label
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 1 hour 36 mins 03 secs
If Formula One fans really do care about this loss of enjoyment (and I'm beginning to wonder) I would encourage more people to sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
A fantastic, eventful race which was the most exciting for years. But our joy at seeing Lewis Hamilton win his first Grand Prix in such style and such difficult circumstances was overshadowed by the realisation that ITV stole more of the live race with ad breaks than in any race this season.
The six breaks added up to 17 minutes and 15 seconds - more than a quarter of an hour of an event in which even hundredths of seconds can make or break a world championship contender.
True, there were four safety cars in this race and ITV did, sensibly, put some of its ad breaks during those, but ITV's reliance on those was shown to be dodgy when one driver crashed straight into a barrier during a safety car period!
Here is a list of this race's advertisers who thought we'd prefer to watch advertisements for their products and services rather than enjoying the race we'd tuned in to watch.
THE F1 ADVERTISERS ROLL OF SHAME
Honda
Vodafone
Ford C-Max
Ronseal Power Sprayer
Hastings Direct
Santander/Abbey
Bulmers Original
Iveco Stralis
Renault Clio
O2 (twice)
Heineken
Fosters' Super Chilled
Samsung LCD TV
Orange Reserve Time
Lexus
Allure Homme Sport from Chanel
Hondamentalism.com
BT
British Grand Prix, voiced by Murray Walker
Magners Irish Cider
Motorola Moto Rizr78
VW Golf
Daktarin Aktiv Spray Powder
Strongbow
Panasonic Lumix
Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Lynx Vice
Carlsberg Edge
Here is the cumulative total of the losses suffered by viewers as a direct result of ITV's insensitivity in showing ads during the live race itself.
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST THIS SEASON: 1 hour 21 mins 43 secs
If Formula One fans really do care about this loss of enjoyment (and I'm beginning to wonder) I would encourage more people to sign the online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/spoilsports/
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Congratulations to Skoda on its new Fabia ad - one of the most outstandingly original TV commercials of our age.
The ad showing bakers creating a full-sized Fabia cake is fascinating, funny, and finely crafted, supported by a soundtrack of Julie Andrews singing A Few Of My Favourite Things.
If Fabias are built with the same love and pride that the bakers in the ad show, Skoda might finally shake off the stigma that dogged the brand for so many decades.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Channel 4 seem to have got their act together - at last - regarding the behaviour of housemates in the Big Brother House.
After all the shameful shilly-shallying about the Shilpa Shetty victimisation in the Celebrity Big Brother House which Channel 4 only seemed to take seriously when its sponsor, Carphone Warehouse, bowed to pressure and withdrew its advertising millions, the broadcaster has acted swiflty in expelling Emily Parr for using a racist word that any normal white person would rather be shot than utter these days.
Alas, she can only be thrown out of the House rather the UK itself, which would be better off without her and her sort.
By the way, has anyone noticed the remarkable resemblance between psychedelic scarecrow Tracey and her namesake, umade bed artist Tracey Emin?
Has anyone ever seen them together in the same room? Thought not.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Suspicions about consumer competitions being fixed have been circulating for at least the 25 years that I've been entering them.
Those suspicions were usually held by people who had never won a competition.
I knew that competitions weren't fixed, because I won 18 substantial prizes - including a £15,700 car - in just 18 months. And no-one, but no-one, would have fixed a competition to make me the winner.
But that was in the Eighties, and things were different then.
In those days, the majority of competitions required entrants to buy a product then write a slogan on the lines of "I love So-and-so because..." in 10 words or fewer.
That meant that anyone who could string a few words together had a sporting chance of winning a prize as a result of their wit or ingenuity.
It was fun, and even in my rather modest case, it resulted in my winning the Audi, a £900 hi-fi, a microwave, a video recorder, £600, a £1,500 motorised satellite dish, and other prizes totalling £23,000.
Compers, as those who enter competitions regularly are known, had to work hard for their prizes.
I once bought 96 tins of cat food for a cat I didn't have in what proved to be a vain attempt to win a trip around the world. And, perhaps fortunately, I didn't win the Tampax competition with my slogan that it helped me have the time of my life despite the time of the month.
Equally, the competition organisers had to make a bit of effort, too.
They had to open and check sometimes hundreds of thousands of entries, whittle them down to a shortlist, then appoint a panel of judges, including at least one independent person, to evaluate the slogans and choose a winner.
It worked, and it was fair. I know, because I entered hundreds of competitions but still won far more than I might have expected to had it merely been for the law of averages.
Sadly, marketing methods have changed, and the companies who used to run slogan competitions have almost all turned to the prize draw as a no-effort substitute.
Instead of sifting through all those entries, finding judges, and looking through all those slogans for the most apt and original one, now all they have to do is select one of their many mailbags, fish out one entry at random, and contact the winner.
Easy-peasy, but with the exception of the winner, everyone else is a loser. Including the promoter.
That's because dreaming up a slogan often meant days of thinking about the product being promoted. Whether we won or lost, we were drumming into our minds the supposed benefits of Brand X, and such thoughts may still be subconsciously influencing us on our trips to the supermarket.
Contrast this with the draw, which usually requires no more effort than writing our name and address on an entry form and popping it in a box or, increasingly, filling out an online form and pressing Send.
We may not even notice what the product is, and certainly don't think positive things about it for days on end. So although the promoters have made it an easy promotion to administer, it is infinitely less effective in terms of brand awareness and customer loyalty.
From a comper's point of view, draws are dispiriting. No skill is involved, so it doesn't matter whether we're clever or not. There's nothing we can do to increase our chances of winning, unlike the slogan competitions of old.
There are still a few slogan competitions about, but they are a comparative rarity, as anyone who follows the monthly listing on the excellent compers' website dotcomper.co.uk will know.
Meanwhile, I can no longer defend the integrity of competition promoters as I used to do.
Anyone who has been reading the papers for the past few months or saw tonight's superb edition of Panorama (BBC1) will be aware of just how badly - and how often - we consumers appear to be being shafted by television programmes running premium-rate phone-ins.
There is a simple solution to this: don't phone them. Ever.
If no-one rang them, the competitions would come off the air quicker than you could say "Icstis". And the programme-makers would have to go back to the old-fashioned method of making programmes that we wanted to watch but which didn't cost us a penny extra.
Some programmes might well come off the air if we no longer phoned in, but would that really be such a loss?
If the programme-makers' intentions are really to entertain us rather than milk us, why don't they make their phone-in competitions freephone?
True, they wouldn't make any money from callers, but they might get so many more viewers and participants that they could charge more for advertising spots due to the higher ratings.
As a TV producer myself, it is shaming that some in the industry have stooped so low and shown such utter contempt for the viewers, without whom there would be no programmes to produce.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!