I was dramatising a situation. A sort of Mistral retelling a scene.

I’m now considering spending my car allowance with Ling – was going to shop round, but all the deals are much the same as it’s a competitive space, so I may as well go with someone I like. Smart, irreverent, able to turn a stupid situation to her advantage. I admire these characteristics and they’ve won a customer. I doubt I’m the only one 🙂

Excellent. Feeling sorry for the process hamstrung ASA but can’t help liking Ling’s email stylee. Could see it coming but still laughed at the complaint against her own website 😉

It’s an issue to do with respecting an individual’s situation that they are just doing what they are paid to do by their organisation. Posting personal details on the internet of an employee, without consent, is not fair game, and steps beyond what should be done by a company, whether they want to portray themselves as a bit clever arse or not. Do you think STW would do it? If you ran a large company, would you do it? It’s naff & unprofessional.

What personal details? Lucy Crowe is part of a public government body and is paid to investigate this kind of thing, I can’t see her personal number or address, just her title, corporate email, and (presumably) work phone number. Why shouldn’t that be published?

(Granted, Ms. Ling’s not making any friends in the ASA with this public approach, but that’s her problem, not mine.)

I’m now considering spending my car allowance with Ling – was going to shop round, but all the deals are much the same as it’s a competitive space, so I may as well go with someone I like. Smart, irreverent, able to turn a stupid situation to her advantage. I admire these characteristics and they’ve won a customer.

Planning on ordering a DeLorean?

I wish – but then unlike a huge amount of online customers, I have a brain in my head and research. That way if anything goes wrong, it’s my fault…..

Crikey Ling is annoying, never realised.

You never watched The Apprentice then?

Lucy Crowe is part of a public government body

Fail.

When people at work leave their screens unlocked at work, Lings Cars suddenly becomes their homepage

So. Ling. Would you?

Lucy Crowe is part of a public government body
Fail.

Sorry, should have been more precise: she works for a body that is not part of the political (elected) government, but is an organisation that regulates advertising, with legal firepower provided by the OFT. So no, not technically speaking a “public government body”, but it might as well be.

Shes an employee- anyone could scrutinise her emails/complain/dig etc etc – it’d probably come to nowt but if your personal emails to clients etc were made public, someone could nit-pick (or you’d worry they might). She might have gone home stressing about etc.

Handwringing? maybe but its part of the reason why I think Ling over-stepped a line. Self-promotion without thinking of others.

Just noticed this thread, she’s always had a bit of a crazy idea about advertising, years ago I’m sure she had a tank or a old jet fighter parked up advertising her cars. Not sure if she still does, but she lived about half a mile from me, second hand cars sales in dodgy advert scam…nothing new here?

It’s really not a scam.

Re: personal details, I can see an obvious potential issue with publishing email addresses on the Internet in this sort of context. To wit, an influx of semi-literate abuse from the bottom half of the Internet.

second hand cars sales in dodgy advert scam

errrm, except she only sells new cars and even then only acts as an agent.

I’m interested as to why the equally frivolous Robin Reliant ad has received no attention from the ASA.

has received no attention from the ASA

Because no-one has complained about it and they only respond to complaints?

so, in theory, she could continue to run the Reliant stuff despite the ASA ruling that the identical bar the car DeLorean one is ‘wrong’?

Well that’s the public well and truely protected.

Yes – she even offered that they look at the Robin advert in her correspondence with them.

It is ludicrous.

I saw a misleading advert the other day for Mcdonalds, there was a pilot saying he had just bought a burger for £1.49??? not in an airport he didnt!

misleading adverts you say?

of course some are more accurate than others

It’s starting again.

from twitter;

Reply from the Advertising Standards Authority. It is “embargoed”. Bollocks to that. Will publish, very soon.