Here’s the follow up to a story we ran a little while ago, about Which? and its misleading marketing of the Good Food Guide (which it publishes). The ‘explanation’ we’ve now received from Which? raises further worrying questions about the standards of the former ‘Consumers’ Assocation’.
The basic facts are very simple: December’s Which? magazine included a section of 50 “test Best Buys”, which included the Good Food Guide 2010. It is not disputed that food guides have never been tested by Which?, so the inclusion of the Guide in the section was nonsense. It also flagrantly broke the clearly understood distinction in publishing between editorial and advertising: it should always be clear to readers whether they are reading straight-up information on the one hand, or marketing material on the other.
The troubling questions begin right here. In that the claim for the Guide was clearly untrue, and clearly not flagged as an advertisement, what can the process have been by which the phony editorial came into being? Clearly someone suggested wrapping a puff for a Which? product as if it were independent editorial. So who was that? Was it the staff in charge of the Good Food Guide? Or is it just house policy to puff Which? products wherever possible? How could any journalist working for a 'consumers association’ not understand that the two are, and always must be, kept entirely separate?
Next question: how could Martyn Hocking, the editor of the magazine, not have noticed that all these gross and obvious breaches of basic standards of accuracy and editorial independence were happening on his watch? Perhaps he was away at the relevant time? And if so, why didn’t his deputy notice? Why didn’t someone in authority notice a total breach of standards was under way? (We were just idly flipping through a copy of Which? when the obvious 'wrongness’ of the Guide piece 'jumped off the page’ at us.)
We asked Mr Hocking to explain why his magazine had been publishing false marketing as if it were honest editorial in an email of 17 December. What would an organisation which really cared about its standards and its perception of integrity do at this point? Well, pick up the phone, we’d guess, and either try to explain that the piece wasn’t false at all (we’ll come back to that later), or alternatively promise an investigation and a prompt report. Well, we’ve never heard anything from Mr Hocking, at the time or since.
So, on to a lady in Which? external affairs. We explain the facts. Without any investigation, she assures us that she is sure that Which? is ‘relaxed’ about what it has published. We find this admission – almost a boast – bizarre, and ask her to come back with a more considered response. She never does.
Time for the top then. On 18 December, an email is duly dispatched to Peter Vicary Smith, director general of Which?, which clearly states that Which? had been promoting one of its products “on the basis of a false claim”. In any well run organisation – most of all a former ‘consumers’ association’ that makes a big song and dance about its integrity – you might have thought that such an email would immediately set alarm bells ringing, and that an acknowledgment and a promise of swift investigation would speedily follow.
But no, we hear nothing from Which? until 6 January, when Anne Butterworth, Head of External Relations, promises a response “in the next few days”. It arrives on 14 January, about a month after we first got in touch. So, at last we have a considered response from a high-ranking Which? official. So what can it be? Well, it turns out she’s spent a week drafting an email which seeks to explain that the article was not really about what – in black and white – Which? said it was about!
The article didn’t give really give much scope for argument. It was headed “The very Best Buys”, and the byline read: “Our experts pick the 50 outstanding Best Buys in recent Which? tests, from £120 to £7,000”. Pretty clear, you might have thought. And at the top of every double-page spread it says: “On test Top 50 Best Buys”. And, in case there was any doubt, the article states in a postscript that “In this article, we’ve shown you the very Best Buys we’ve tested”. So that must be what the article was about then?
Ah no, Ms Butterworth says. The article also included some ‘other’ tips which were not purported to be test Best Buys, so the reader couldn’t assume that any particular listing was represented as being a test Best Buy. This might – just – be the beginnings of a defence, if it weren’t for the fact that these ‘other’ items were clearly distinguished from the general run of the article… so the reader could only assume that the rest of the article was about what Which? said it was about: “Our experts pick the 50 outstanding Best Buys in recent Which? tests”. You can’t, surely, argue that the actual description of the article – which Which? gave in five separate places – had no bearing on what readers were to understand it was about?
It is, in short, impossible to take Ms Butterworth’s argument seriously. The fact that a high official of Which? thinks it appropriate to make such a trivial response to such a serious claim would seem to tell you everything you need to known about the organisation and its standards. Assuming, of course, it has any.
PS (1 February) Truth really is stranger than fiction. What do we see in tiny, tiny print at the back of February’s Which?, but a mealy-mouthed acceptance – in the corrections and clarifications column – that things were not quite as they should have been in the November article. Thus, it’s not just us at Harden’s who think that Ms Butterworth’s argument was impossible to take seriously – the Which? editorial machine clearly thinks so too!
Follow hardensbites Follow hardensparty
Become a Harden's fan
