BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

One woman's unsatisfactory experience of signing up with a fitness centre was dealt

with in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7.30pm on 24 February 1997 on TV2. The

item referred to the marketing company which signed the woman to a membership of a

fitness centre, and a company representative was interviewed.

Trina Pietersma, manager of the marketing company named and the person

interviewed, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

programme was biased against her and the company and that it was inaccurate.

TVNZ in reply did not consider that Ms Pietersma or her company had been treated

unfairly by the programme, or that it contained any inaccuracies.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Ms Pietersma referred her complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A marketing company "The Concept Company" (The Company) was the focus of a

Fair Go item broadcast on TV2 at 7.30pm on 24 February 1997. A woman who had

signed up to a membership of a fitness centre through The Company, said she had

been promised by The Company a personal fitness trainer but, upon attending the

fitness centre, this had not been provided. The manager of The Company, Trina

Pietersma, was interviewed on the item and denied that a personal trainer would have

been part of the contract offered. Reference was made in the item to 30,000 people

having been signed up to membership of fitness centres by marketing companies.

Ms Pietersma complained to TVNZ that the item was biased against her and The

Company, and maintained that the reporter was interested in neither truth nor facts.

Specifically, she raised two issues.

1. That The Company had joined a maximum of 5,000 people as members and

not the 30,000 as stated on the programme.

2. That Ms Searancke, the woman whose complaint was the subject of the item,

had not, until Fair Go became involved, paid any part of her membership fee

and that while she had joined the fitness centre in January 1996, it was not

until November that year that she had complained.

TVNZ reported that it considered her complaint under standard G4 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters:

G4   To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

In response to the complaint that Ms Pietersma's company had signed up 30,000

members, TVNZ maintained that the script made it clear that that number applied to

all marketing companies, not just The Company.

TVNZ pointed out that Ms Searancke had paid only half of the joining fee in

December, because she objected to the service she received. It said it was clear that

Ms Searancke had complained continually about her dissatisfaction with the service

provided. It suggested that as a result of the Fair Go programme, half the amount Ms

Searancke had paid was refunded to her.

When she referred the complaint to the Authority, Ms Pietersma provided figures

which showed that fewer than 30,000 people had been joined as members by

marketing companies. TVNZ responded that its 30,000 figure had been provided by a

Director of Adfit Marketing Services, Mr Paul Faint and, it contended later, that figure

had not been contested by Ms Pietersma before the broadcast.

Ms Pietersma then provided a letter from Mr Faint which stated that he had advised

Fair Go's reporter that while there had been around 30,000 processed membership

payments, over a two year period, only around 10,000 of those had been promotional

members.

TVNZ advised that the reporter remained adamant that Mr Faint did not raise the

figure of 10,000 referred to by Ms Pietersma.

The Authority considers that Ms Pietersma may have initially misunderstood that the

reference to 30,000 people having joined as members was a reference to all marketing

companies and not just The Company. It notes that there is also a dispute over

whether 30,000 was the correct number of people joined as members by marketing

companies.

Ms Pietersma stated that the programme was also inaccurate when it claimed that Ms

Searancke was refunded half the fee as a result of the Fair Go programme. She

pointed out that Ms Searancke had offered to pay half her membership fee to the gym

before Fair Go became involved (in January), and that an arrangement was made that

she would be refunded half of that amount.

TVNZ stood by its claim that Ms Searancke received the refund as a result of Fair

Go's involvement, noting that half the fee was paid before the programme was

broadcast, and, as a consequence of Fair Go's negotiation with the membership

company, half of that amount was later refunded.

The Authority is unable to resolve the issue whether Ms Searancke received a refund

as a result of the Fair Go's involvement or whether that had been agreed upon earlier.

The parties are adamant that they have each advanced a correct interpretation of the

facts. Because the matter does not impact on the core of Ms Pietersma's complaint -

that she and The Company were dealt with unfairly - the Authority does not believe

that it is justified in expending the resources, and demanding considerable effort on the

part of both the broadcaster and the complainant, to determine this aspect of the

complaint.

Regarding the allegation by Ms Searancke that The Company promised she would

have a personal instructor, Ms Pietersma explained that prospective clients were told

that there would be an instructor available at the gym at all times to help when needed.

They were not told they would have a personal instructor.

TVNZ noted that Ms Pietersma was given the opportunity to deny that such a

promise was given, and it was for the viewer to decide which of the opposing views

they should believe. The item, it said, recognised that the two viewpoints were

irreconcilable and faithfully presented both without reaching a conclusion.

The Authority considers that Ms Pietersma and The Company were dealt with justly

and fairly in the Fair Go item. Ms Pietersma was provided with and took the

opportunity to respond on camera to the allegation that The Company promised

something that the fitness centre was unable to deliver. In its view she dealt with the

interview competently, and clearly articulated her responses to the criticisms against

The Company. The Authority recognises that there are some factual matters which it

is unable to resolve but does not consider these go to the heart of the complaint. It

concludes that overall the programme was balanced and fair to Ms Pietersma and The

Company.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
Member
26 June 1997

Appendix

Ms Pietersma's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 13 March 1997

Trina Pietersma of Taupo complained, via the Broadcasting Standards Authority, to

Television New Zealand Ltd that an item on Fair Go broadcast on 24 February 1997

was biased against her and the company she managed. She maintained that the

presenter was interested in neither the truth nor facts. The item, she said, claimed:

1. That The Concept Company had joined 30,000 gym members. In response,

she advised that it had joined, at maximum, 5,000 members.

2. That Katherine Searancke, the woman who had complained to Fair Go about

the benefits she had not received from her gym membership, was to receive 50%

refund on her membership since contacting Fair Go. Ms Pietersma explained that Ms

Searancke had not paid for her membership, but that once Fair Go was involved she

(Ms Searancke) had written to a collection agency offering to pay half the membership

fee. That was accepted by the fitness centre.

Ms Pietersma was also concerned that critical information had been left out of the

item. According to Ms Pietersma, on 7 January 1996, in a letter, Ms Searancke was

welcomed to the gym and advised of her obligations and payments. She subsequently

received five arrears notices, the last being on 8 November. Ms Pietersma advised that

Ms Searancke had not complained to anyone until November. She said she had not

heard about the case until contacted by Fair Go on 30 January 1997. Ms Pietersma

advised that The Concept Company had had no complaints about the running of the

promotion.

Ms Pietersma also complained about the reporter's aggressive attitude, which in her

view amounted to harassment.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 7 April 1997

TVNZ advised that the complaint was considered in the context of standard G4 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

In response to the complaint that there was reference to Ms Pietersma's company

having signed up 30,000 members, TVNZ quoted from the script as follows:

Now this sort of thing is quite common. Marketing Companies drumming up

gym memberships swoop into a town, do their business, and then target the

next place. Fair Go understands in recent months they've signed up 30,000

people.

TVNZ argued that the script clearly linked the 30,000 people with "marketing

companies".

It also said that enquiries showed that Ms Searancke did write to Bay Collection

Agency at the end of December, restating her objections to the Adfit contract but

offering to pay half the fee. It said that following the Fair Go programme, Adfit

returned Ms Searancke half of that money.

TVNZ said that it was clear that Ms Searancke did complain continuously about the

service she felt she was not receiving. It added that she had not complained to Ms

Pietersma as there was no reason to believe that anyone from The Company was in

the area at the time.

TVNZ referred to comments made by Ms Pietersma about the conduct of the

interviews and considered them not to be relevant to the complaint. It declined to

uphold the complaint as a breach of standard G4.

Ms Pietersma's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 30 April

1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Ms Pietersma referred it to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Ms Pietersma

considered the response to be biased and incorrect.

She provided figures which showed that in the 1996-97 year 2,653 people were joined

by marketing companies, not just The Company, and she pointed out that the

arrangement about the repayment of money had been made prior to the involvement of

Fair Go.

Ms Pietersma also noted that the item made reference to Ms Searancke not receiving

what she believed she had signed up for - a personal instructor. Ms Pietersma

advised:

The Concept Company have no responsibility for the staff at the gym and

have no way of being able to influence how well they do their job. Mark

Hannan [of Fair Go] claimed she was promised a personal instructor, on the

programme she stated the instructor was eating his lunch instead of helping

her.

Does this mean she acknowledges she was told there would be an instructor

available and there was but he was not very good.

A personal instructor is someone who is by your side throughout the entire

work out and this is what Mark Hannan referred to whilst he accused me of

misleading prospective members.

In this case we did tell her an instructor would be at the gym all day to help

when she needed it, and there was and we did not mislead.

Ms Pietersma also answered TVNZ's comments regarding the interviews she had

given.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 7 May 1997

As it considered Ms Pietersma's referral to have provided the same information as

that contained in her formal complaint, TVNZ stood by the contents of its letter to

Ms Pietersma of 7 April. Nonetheless, it elaborated on some detail.

In relation to the figure of 30,000 people joined by marketing services, TVNZ advised

that that figure had been provided by a director of Adfit Marketing Services on 31

January 1997.

TVNZ maintained that Ms Searancke did receive a refund as part of the Fair Go

investigation. It said that a refund was discussed by Ms Searancke and the Bay

Collection agency through Adfit Membership Services prior to the Fair Go's

involvement, but this arrangement had fallen through. TVNZ advised that Fair Go

discussed with Adfit the question of a refund, and as a consequence of that

conversation, Adfit refunded half the fee.

TVNZ also stood by the claim in the item that Ms Searancke did not get what she was

promised - a personal instructor.

In addition, TVNZ disputed the facts provided by Ms Pietersma regarding the

interviews by Fair Go.

Ms Pietersma's Final Comment to the Authority - 30 May 1997

Miss Pietersma enclosed a videotape of her interview for the Fair Go item and a fax

from Mr Faint of Adfit in which he said he had clearly stated to Fair Go's reporter

that he had estimated that 10,000 members would have been joined by marketing

companies to the fitness centre over the last two years.

Ms Pietersma advised that Ms Searancke had in fact offered to pay half her

membership fee to the gym before Fair Go became involved. She then reversed her

offer, in Ms Pietersma's view, because Ms Searancke believed the threat of going to

Fair Go would mean not having to pay at all. Ms Pietersma reiterated that Ms

Searancke was never promised a personal trainer.

Ms Pietersma explained that she was advised by her lawyer not to consent to an

interview, but when she told the reporter this, he insisted he would track her down.

She felt obliged to agree to the interview because of what she felt was harassment from

the reporter.

Ms Pietersma was insistent that all the facts about her company's promotion had not

been aired, and her integrity had been questioned

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 9 June 1997

TVNZ advised that the reporter was adamant that in discussions with him, Mr Faint

did not refer to the figure of 10,000 memberships claimed by Ms Pietersma. It drew

attention to the letter to the Authority quoting from the transcript of a telephone

conversation with Ms Pietersma about the number.

TVNZ also referred to the fact that tapes of telephone conversations with Ms

Pietersma had been provided to her under the Official Information Act.