Money making mag shames politicians
Advertising watchdog slams ‘Parliamentary’ publication fronted by MPs
THERE’S a bunch of politicians from all three main parties who should be feeling thoroughly embarrassed.
They’ve lent their name to an official-sounding outfit that I’ve previously exposed and that has now been condemned by watchdogs for misleading marketing.
I told last year how The Parliamentary Review sends junk letters and emails to businesses, charities, hospitals and schools suggesting they might be honoured by inclusion in one of its magazines.
Plenty of prominent politicians have been roped into supporting it.
Labour’s Lord Blunkett is co-chairman with former Conservative MP Lord Pickles, Theresa May provided the foreword to one edition, and Tony Blair and Nick Clegg have spoken at its “celebratory evenings” held in Westminster.
Yet this is a private commercial operation which, despite the name, has no official Parliamentary connection whatsoever.
One business owner who was approached accused it of “cheapening and exploiting Parliament”.
He told me: “The invitation from Eric Pickles was presented as a great honour and included an invitation to a celebratory evening to mark the Review’s release, with key figures from Westminster’s past and present in attendance. But it is no honour at all.
“The invitation, which it seems many have fallen for, is an unethical marketing ploy to get people to telephone the outfit producing this publication in order for them to deliver a sales pitch in which £3,500 per organisation featured is asked for.”
The Review is produced by Westminster Publications Limited, run by 31-year-old Daniel Yossman.
“To suggest that our approaches are in any way unethical is wrong, misleading and inaccurate,” he replied, when I asked last year if he wanted to comment.
He also wrote to the Mirror’s editor saying: “Publication of any of these allegations, in any form whatsoever, would be materially damaging to our reputation and business, which currently has a turnover of £2.2million.
“We would not hesitate to take legal action immediately in the event of any such publication.”
If that was an attempt to scare off The Mirror, it didn’t work, and we ran the story in February last year.
Now that story has been confirmed in a damning adjudication by the Advertising Standards Authority.
It ruled that junkmail sent by Parliamentary Review in envelopes marked “The Office of Rt Hon the Lord Pickles” did not make plain that this was a marketing letter and misleadingly implied that inclusion in the journal was something special. “The letter stated that recipients’ organisations were being ‘invited’ to contribute and there was nothing to indicate that they would need to pay to be featured in The Parliamentary Review,” the watchdog ruled. “We considered that recipients would be likely to understand that their organisation had been selected on the basis of merit to contribute to the publication.” In fact anyone who paid could be included, as proven by the Tyneside school that appeared with the slogan “Highlighting best practice” but was repeatedly categorised as failing by education standards body Ofsted.
The watchdog also said that the Review wrongly gave the impression that it enjoyed official status, and failed to make clear that the content of its magazines was paid-for advertorials. Westminster Publications claimed that it had not intended to mislead and said that in future it would include a phrase making clear that it is “independent of government and entirely funded by the organisations who appear in it”.
I’ll be watching with interest to see which politicians help promote any further editions.
‘‘
There was nothing to indicate they would need to pay to be in the Review