Jack Monroe #546 Kerridge = fingers, Sir Matt = forearms

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
kim-jong-un-hosting-a-cooking-show-v0-5ixptr4o490a1.jpg
 
RandomFishOils said:
No, I’m afraid not. As it was in a press release targeted at journalists, rather than consumers, it’s not covered by the ASA or CAP. They haven’t even put it on the press releases area of their website, but even then it wouldn’t be covered if it’s clearly aimed at the press. The recipes on the Currys website - which are targeted directly at consumers - don’t include the same nonsensical claims about saving £3k a year. Sorry (Currys’ comms team breathing a sigh of relief).
Click to expand...
I don't really understand ...
What's the purpose of the press release to journos - to sell an advertorial?
And why would you include this "information" in a press release except in the expectation that it will be re-published in various articles? Are Curry's trying to circumvent ASA rules?
 
ForgettyBetty said:
I don't really understand ...
What's the purpose of the press release to journos - to sell an advertorial?
And why would you include this "information" in a press release except in the expectation that it will be re-published in various articles? Are Curry's trying to circumvent ASA rules?
Click to expand...
As I see it:

Earned i.e. not paid for PR isn’t governed by the same rules as paid for advertising which goes directly to the consumer in order to get them to buy something. Radio, TV and cinema ads have to be cleared as factual and truthful before they air (although some get through the net, obviously, or we wouldn’t need the ASA). This doesn’t apply to some other ads e.g. social media advertising, paid influencer posts but they still fall under the remit of the ASA once they go live. PR is different. A press release is aimed at a journalist, not the consumer. If you send press releases directly to the consumer, then it counts as direct advertising and would be subject to the ASA.

I know that this seems weird, as the intention is the same i.e. hope that the journo runs it and uses their publication to get it to the consumer instead. However, there is absolutely no onus on the journalist to publish it, either in its original form or paraphrased. I suppose that the responsibility then passes to the publication, but they could argue that they took the information in good faith. This is why earned PR is gold dust - you get the spread without having to pay for it and you gain the element of trust from the public’s perception of the publication.

Any content that you have paid for to go into a publication counts as advertorial and has to be clearly marked as such (also why paid influencer partnerships have to clearly display #ad). It would be subject to the ASA rules exactly the same as if it was an advert. I suppose the answer lies in contract law somewhere, as money has been exchanged in return for services. There is no contract with earned PR, it works on faith and relationships. HTH!
 
RandomFishOils said:
As I see it:

Earned i.e. not paid for PR isn’t governed by the same rules as paid for advertising which goes directly to the consumer in order to get them to buy something. Radio, TV and cinema ads have to be cleared as factual and truthful before they air (although some get through the net, obviously, or we wouldn’t need the ASA). This doesn’t apply to some other ads e.g. social media advertising, paid influencer posts but they still fall under the remit of the ASA once they go live. PR is different. A press release is aimed at a journalist, not the consumer. If you send press releases directly to the consumer, then it counts as direct advertising and would be subject to the ASA.

I know that this seems weird, as the intention is the same i.e. hope that the journo runs it and uses their publication to get it to the consumer instead. However, there is absolutely no onus on the journalist to publish it, either in its original form or paraphrased. I suppose that the responsibility then passes to the publication, but they could argue that they took the information in good faith. This is why earned PR is gold dust - you get the spread without having to pay for it and you gain the element of trust from the public’s perception of the publication.

Any content that you have paid for to go into a publication counts as advertorial and has to be clearly marked as such (also why paid influencer partnerships have to clearly display #ad). It would be subject to the ASA rules exactly the same as if it was an advert. I suppose the answer lies in contract law somewhere, as money has been exchanged in return for services. There is no contract with earned PR, it works on faith and relationships. HTH!
Click to expand...

Correct. I assume Curry's is hoping that it'll get picked up by some outlet that's desperate for free "food" content, but I would hope that even the stupidest, most time-pressed page-filler would see that asking people to pay north of £150 for a fancy appliance that saves you a clearly made up sum of money if you cook nothing but one specific slop in it for a month is abject nonsense.
 
Currys PR agency is MSL: https://www.mslgroup.co.uk/our-work

They’ve only been with them since July this year, and so far they’ve been responsible for that stupid “beards” campaign - so good, they’ve had to turn the comments off on YouTube - and this Jack paid partnership fiasco. So in answer to the questions about when this tit sandwich was initiated, look no further. It was probably in the bleeping pitch.
 
RandomFishOils said:
As I see it:

Earned i.e. not paid for PR isn’t governed by the same rules as paid for advertising which goes directly to the consumer in order to get them to buy something. Radio, TV and cinema ads have to be cleared as factual and truthful before they air (although some get through the net, obviously, or we wouldn’t need the ASA). This doesn’t apply to some other ads e.g. social media advertising, paid influencer posts but they still fall under the remit of the ASA once they go live. PR is different. A press release is aimed at a journalist, not the consumer. If you send press releases directly to the consumer, then it counts as direct advertising and would be subject to the ASA.

I know that this seems weird, as the intention is the same i.e. hope that the journo runs it and uses their publication to get it to the consumer instead. However, there is absolutely no onus on the journalist to publish it, either in its original form or paraphrased. I suppose that the responsibility then passes to the publication, but they could argue that they took the information in good faith. This is why earned PR is gold dust - you get the spread without having to pay for it and you gain the element of trust from the public’s perception of the publication.

Any content that you have paid for to go into a publication counts as advertorial and has to be clearly marked as such (also why paid influencer partnerships have to clearly display #ad). It would be subject to the ASA rules exactly the same as if it was an advert. I suppose the answer lies in contract law somewhere, as money has been exchanged in return for services. There is no contract with earned PR, it works on faith and relationships. HTH!
Click to expand...

You're 100% correct! PR sent to media, knowing that the dire state of 'journalism' nowadays mostly is fresh graduates copy & pasting press releases or scouring mumsnet for bullshit drama.

So Curry's pay the PR Co, to send this guff out, hoping news sites run it with no question, gain coverage, eyeballs, but most unethically of all trust, because readers consume what is essentially an ad as if it's news.
 
Mr Krabs said:
So the sticky chicken on the Curry’s site bears a lot of similarities to a chicken recipe in Sloppy Food for tit Days. Minus the beer. She’s just padded out the instructions with air fryer tit.

And the vegetable ratatouille mess? Awfully similar to an old Bootstrapcook recipe but with slightly different veg and feta instead of Brie.

So the only recipe I think is ‘unique’ at this point is the chilli one, but perhaps someone with a stronger stomach can look into that. She’s so lazy she plagiarised herself three times.
Click to expand...
The chilli is based on her her “Mumma Jack’s Best Ever” which plagiarized Gordon Ramsay’s (ie completely decimated and sucked all the flavour and joy out of it). For Currys she’s added meat back and upped the liquid content. I can’t tell which one is spicier because “a shake” and 1/4 teaspoon of paprika both seem relatively SCANT
IMG_6306.jpeg
IMG_6307.jpeg
IMG_6308.jpeg


and the “whirlybuns”
IMG_6305.jpeg
Are from the time she and her “Manchester friends” threw their children at one another
IMG_6312.jpeg
IMG_6314.jpeg
Except for Currys she’s taken out the sultanas and added in jam to make them like molten bleeping lava
IMG_6310.jpeg
IMG_6311.jpeg
 
Guest really does have a fear of flavour or texture doesn't she?

I'd love to see her get one last crack at TV. In a show where she's dropped into either the Middle East or Kashmir for 2 weeks, and has to live off actual frugal, spicy, flavoursome food that's made with love by people who can cook.

She'd likely spontaneously combust just from looking at an Aleppo or Jolokia pepper 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top