Misleading Vulcan Advert

Ahh ok I get it.

I really shouldnt worry too much, its papently obvious that they are only taking about a flyable Vulcan and in order to get the money they will have to be a tad agressive with their marketing.

I’m sure no-one here underestimates the work of other Vulcan groups. Indeed The VTS chaps seem to be working with the Wellesbourne organisation with regards to using their Vulcan as a procedural trainer.

Like XM655 at Wellsbourne Mountford, which looks good doing a wheelie in this months Flypast. Not that I’m saying it is airworthy, just that it is a real, working, now Vulcan.

Hi MOFT

What I meant was saying they have the only remaining Vulcan could cause people not to take seriously any fund raising attempts by other Vulcan groups.

Also must feel a bit of insult to those working on the other Vulcan’s.

Very sensible andrewman

One question (just in case I am missing the bleedin obvious here) in what way will the VTS claim that they have they only Vulcan capable of being restored to airworthy status affect the continued operation and preservation to ground taxiying only condition by VRT of XL426?

Like I said I have probably missed something here.

I don’t think getting the ASA involved is necessary.

I have contacted VTS to explain the problems with the new advert and its only fair we give them time to make a satisfactory response before getting any 3rd party’s involved.

Also my support for this project remains 100% I just don’t want to see other Vulcan projects undermined by VTS sending out wrong data.

But I work in advertising and tend to take a more global view. This sort of thing reflects back on all the honest clients and ad agencies, hence my suggestion of the ASA.

They are a self-regulatory body and have no powers to prosecute or levy fines, so it would make a good wake-up call to the idiots at VTS without any danger of them being penalised.

I was worried that complaining to the ASA would result in fines etc, but as that isn’t the case I’ll go with reporting the ad.

It does seem strange that such misinformation was allowed to go out by VTS though (especially as Vulcans are quite obvious landmarks – there are at least 2 within 20 miles of where I sit, one of which I can see from here at my desk).

JC

NURSE…………….HE’S ESCAPED AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course this comment could have been a self-taunting sneer to the psychiatric staff as he shrugged off the straight jacket and broke free from the paddded cell, bwah-ha-ha-haaa.

Flood

But isn’t reporting the matter to the ASA shooting ourselves (as enthusiasts) in the foot?

As enthusiasts, possibly.

But I work in advertising and tend to take a more global view. This sort of thing reflects back on all the honest clients and ad agencies, hence my suggestion of the ASA.

They are a self-regulatory body and have no powers to prosecute or levy fines, so it would make a good wake-up call to the idiots at VTS without any danger of them being penalised.

They can though insist on future ads being pre-vetted (or the media won’t place them) Another good thing I feel.

Moggy

FWIW I don’t usually get involved in things like this, but I can see the point NC is trying to make (badly as it turns out).

The VTS statement about XH558 isn’t totally incorrect but could be regarded as misleading. The fact is however there is a world of difference between XL426 and XH558 and I wouldn’t want to be the lawyer who has to go into bat to prove the advert wrong. That said if it appears to be incorrect a complaint to the ASA may get the wording clarified.

One does have to think however is this in the best interests of getting a Vulcan airborne or is it an attack of pedantry. My personal opinion FWIW is that although allegedly inaccurate this wouldn’t hurt or damage anyone as there is No chance of XL426 being made airworthy (although it maybe technically possible). I guess it’s all a question of semantics.

Oh and I think the comment regarding journalistic inaccuracy was referring to the “Only remaining Vulcan” bit (at least that’s how I read it.)

Still it was **** poor humour.

But isn’t reporting the matter to the ASA shooting ourselves (as enthusiasts) in the foot? Surely a more reasonable approach would be to approach VTS directly with your concerns – It may be that it’s a hurried and inconsidered ad placed on behalf of VTS (by someone outside of the project[1]) without them (VTS) actually error checking it.

Just cautioning restraint in the first instance 🙂

JC

[1] I’d imagine a conversation at the golf club resulting in a favour being done about 3rd hand from the people who know what the real facts are….

No Comment, your attempt at “humour” was completely lost on me too I’m afraid.

Realistically, the only way the statement “XH558 is the only Vulcan able to fly again” can and will be interpreted is that 558 is the only Vulcan that is physically in a fit enough state to be returned to flying status. That is not factually correct and therefore misleading.

Worse still, the statement “XH558 is the only remaining Vulcan” is not open to any interpretation at all. It’s just plain bullsh*t and I’m staggered it’s been included in the advert as, on the face of it, it looks like a blatant attempt to hoodwink people who don’t know any different out of their money.

All in all a pretty shoddy way to carry on. I’m with you on this one Moggy.

There is a self-regulating body called the Advertising Standards Authority. It has a very strict code of behaviour that states the all advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.

I haven’t seen this particular ad but it appears to drive a coach and horses through the latter two requirements and, as such, should be reported to them.

However good the cause lying is not acceptable, particularly where you are trying to part the general public from their hard-earned cash. Weasels like …

The most important requirement for a restoration to flight status being the desire of the owners to undertake the work, second equal is the support of the CAA and the OEM(s)

… simply don’t wash.

There is no way you can blame this (If it is accurately reported) as a journalistic **** up. It would appear to be a straight-forward attempt to obtain money by deception.

I’d send the ad to the ASA today with a formal complaint if I had seen it.

Moggy

No your missing the point.

It was VTS themselves that made 2 seriously inaccurate statements regarding their own project.

Now I have supported 558 fro the last 11 years but I have to say this is not acceptable.

I often talk to someone who is highly involved with the rebuild and operation of classic jets and I quote from our conversation last weekend

One of our biggest problems is public ignorance often caused by untrue “facts” being reported.

Yet here we have VTS one of the most high profile groups putting misleading statements in their own adverts.

Okey dokey then, so banal humour wont work.

1) “XH558 is the only Vulcan able to fly again”

Wrong XL426 at Southend is suitable for a rebuild to fly but VRT have decided not to go down that road.

You appear to have defeated your own arguement here with a contradictory statement. The most important requirement for a restoration to flight status being the desire of the owners to undertake the work, second equal is the support of the CAA and the OEM(s) and third (or is it fourth) being the hard cash. Your statement rules out the first and most important of these requirements. I shant go into the whys and wherefores of whether the aircraft is actually suitable for rebuild because its immaterial.

2) “XH558 is the only remaining Vulcan”

Their are in fact about 20 Vulcan’s left.

Got to agree with you there, typical journalistic **** up.

All in all hardly what I would call seriously misleading on the part of VTS (which I believe is the acronym for what they are calling themselves this week)

Personally I preferred the humour but I guess its an aquired taste. Please feel free to take the P155 in return, I think its called banter.

For crying out loud grow up.

I was trying to raise the point that VTS have seriously messed up with their latest adverts and you have chosen to act like a 3 year old.

Had a quick look at the Daily Mail while in Macy’ds today and noticed an advert for funds for XH558.

However the were 2 serious ****-ups that I have e-mailed VTS to inform them about.

1) “XH558 is the only Vulcan able to fly again”

Wrong XL426 at Southend is suitable for a rebuild to fly but VRT have decided not to go down that road.

2) “XH558 is the only remaining Vulcan”

Their are in fact about 20 Vulcan’s left.

I hope they can get things right in their next advert.

NURSE…………….HE’S ESCAPED AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!