Why does Which? (the former Consumers’ Association) have to resort to making false or exaggerated claims in its marketing of the Good Food Guide? The latest example is in Which? magazine for December, which highlights “50 outstanding Best Buys in recent Which? tests”.
Which? ‘Best Buy’ status is coveted in some circles, so it seems a useful round-up. But what’s this we see listed? And pictured, and appraised with pros and cons, like the other Best Buys? Why, the Good Food Guide 2010!
We don’t recall Which? ever testing restaurant guides – how could they, when they publish their own? – and their member helpline confirms that no such test has ever taken place. So the claim for the Good Food Guide is nonsense.
But could we say it’s just a bit of harmless puffery? That’s a difficult argument to sustain. Which? – motto: “No advertising, no bias, no hidden agenda” – is a holier-than-thou organisation, which would certainly make a big fuss if someone else passed a product off as a Which? Best Buy when it was no such thing.
And don’t serious publications usually make clear what’s advertising, and what isn’t?
When it comes to carelessness with the facts, though, Which? has ‘form’. Just two editions ago, Which? intensively marketed the Guide to the booktrade on the basis of what turned out to be a wild overstatement of what the coverage would be.
Of course, we asked the Editor of Which? why his magazine had been reporting nonsense but he never found time to respond. However, an ‘external affairs’ spokesperson for the organisation did not appear to dissent from proposition that readers might have been misled. She said, though, that she imagined that Which? would be “quite comfortable” with what they had published.
Which, of course, is precisely the problem.
(For more background on Which?’s marketing of the Guide, and on its claims to independence, just put “GFG” in the search box for this site.)
PS (21 December) The most telling thing about this whole affair is perhaps the ongoing silence from Which?, and most particularly its Chief Executive, Peter Vicary Smith. We wrote to him on 18 December, asking if he was as relaxed about Which? readers being misled as Which?’s official spokesman was.
Given the importance of Which?’s reputation, we thought we might expect some answer. Perhaps the promise of an investigation, and an assurance that, if appropriate, measures would be taken to ensure that readers were not misled again? Or even – the most likely outcome on past experience – a tirade of bombast from the Which? legal department.
But no. Not a peep. If the situation changes, we’ll update the story.
PS (7 January) We now have an email from Which?’s Head of External Relations dated 6 January, promising a response “in the next few days”.
PS (15 January) A response, or rather a non-response, arrives from Which? Full of flannel about the “aims” of the piece, and other irrelevancies, it entirely fails to address the complaint actually made: that the words explicitly used in the article were false and misleading.
We’ve written back to ask Which? to address the complaint we actually made. Don’t hold your breath!
Follow hardensbites Follow hardensparty
Become a Harden's fan
