Is the ASA wrong on virtual offices?

When the latest issue of The Negotiator's email newsletter dropped into my inbox this morning, yet another article about the ASA banning a Spicerhaart advert caught my eye.

Where Haart have clearly over-stepped the mark in previous run-ins with the Advertising Standards Authority, on claims to be the number one agent based on Vizzihomes research, penalty fees and advert style, the latest confrontation (the seventh) might have wider industry implications.

It all boils down to the phrase "haart of Shenley" and whether the ASA has caught up with the concept of regional or virtual offices - and is being consistent in its approach (Haart had previously held off similar claims from Taylors).

From the adjudication:

"The ASA noted the ad made multiple references to "haart of Shenley" and considered most consumers would understand the phrase to mean that Haart had a specialist base in that immediate area. Furthermore, we considered that the phrase was also likely to be interpreted as a play-on-words around "heart of Shenley" and that consumers were likely to assume that this element of the Haart group were based in the centre of Shenley. We considered those consumers would expect any such base to be a physical office where they could easily visit staff straight off the street or through pre-appointment."

While Spicerhaart may well be treading on some toes with their iSold project, I believe they've been a little hard done by here.

Something to be watchful of in your own regional advertising though.