I note from the newsfeeds that Bill Plant has been tussling with the ASA again. This time, rather than being on the offensive against other schools it 
found itself having to explain some of its creative claims which had been challenged by one of its franchisees.
(Note that the stand-in logo to the left is used because last time (when they were challenging another school’s use of the word “national”) I got an email from them demanding that I remove their registered trademark from my news story. So this time, I removed it before I even used it. What makes me laugh is that I’ve never really had an axe to grind with Bill Plant, and I’ve always been fairly sympathetic towards them. It’s funny how being told to remove a logo – with “or else” being implied – can alter your way of thinking about someone. Another advertising faux pas, so to speak.)
You can read the full ruling for yourself, but the four points centred around a freephone number that wasn’t free, an inflated franchisee support claim, a misleading “free pupils” claim, and a misleading “free CPD” claim. All were upheld, and Bill Plant told not to do any of it again.