/ 18 March 2005

Rough ride for Land Rover

An unusual half-page letter was published in a recent edition of the Cape Times. Printed in a large red font, the letter had no graphic ambitions. It was a letter but it was marked across the top as an advertisement, a necessary qualification in case the newspaper is identified as the source of the material. Congratulations are, nonetheless, due to the Cape Times for running it. Many newspapers would have found some excuse to fight shy for fear of being involved in subsequent legal action.

The half-page was headed OPEN LETTER TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF LAND ROVER SOUTH AFRICA and was signed by Andy Gray, the disenchanted owner of a Range Rover TD6, which he had bought new in April 2003. This model is currently priced at R769 000.

In his letter, Gray records the problems he’s had with the vehicle from the start, how it has taken the patience of Job to get the dealer to correct these. Not yet three years old, Gray’s Range Rover broke down completely in February this year, near Victoria West. Still under full guarantee, it was arranged for the vehicle to be moved by Land Rover Assist to George. Or so Gray was assured.

The vehicle disappeared, never arriving in George. By diligent tracking and enquiry, Gray eventually found it himself, at the Land Rover agents in Oudtshoorn. For almost a fortnight, he was given the run-around by various minor Land Rover functionaries. He was never able to get hold of the dealer principal. No one ever phoned back, either from Oudtshoorn or from the Land Rover Customer Care department in Johannesburg. No repairs were made.

In his published letter, Gray describes his dealings with Land Rover SA: ‘ … every step is an effort rather like wading through deep molasses.” Publishing the letter was his final desperate move. It cost him a tidy R22 000 and some change.

The Cape Times published a response from Land Rover the very next morning — for free. It came from Land Rover’s SA head of customer relations, Mike Dawson. In response to questions from a reporter, he admitted to having some ‘serious problems with his department and after sale services”. Dawson admitted that Gray’s complaints were entirely true, but then went on to lay the blame for the shortcomings in the Land Rover organisation on someone or something else. Instant blame-shifting is a practice drilled into South African business practitioners from the day they start work. Dawson said the Land Rover company’s efficiency had deteriorated because the company had changed hands frequently in recent years.

Dawson then laid an even glossier egg. He said he had personally arranged to have the vehicle transported to Stellenbosch for immediate repair, a statement met with disbelief by Gray’s personal assistant who said that, in fact, it was Gray who arranged this transport.

This idea of taking personal action in order to expose, settle or argue personal frustrations with big business organisations is not new. Sporadic they might be, but when things like Gray’s letter appear they gladden the heart. Anyone who’s ever owned a car knows what it’s like to be the victim of an industry in need of a great deal of bucking up.

Bigger stakes were at hand in another ‘advertisement”. In last weekend’s Sunday Times there was a full-page advertisement (costing considerably more than R22 000) taken out by Gold Reef City and published in agitated response to some recent investigation into safety standards on the public thrill-rides and roller coaster at the Gold Reef theme park. According to the television programme, Carte Blanche, the rides at the park are about as risk-free as bungee-jumping on a rope made out of 50-year-old reject panty-elastic.

Both Gray’s letter and the Gold Reef ‘statement” were advertisements — indeed the latter was placed on behalf of Gold Reef City by the advertising agency, Sorcery. I can’t help but wonder what would be the position of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) on these two. The ASA monitors agreed codes of advertising and Alan Gray’s letter, marked as an advertisement, might well be subject to these codes. It most certainly would qualify as ‘knocking copy”, something frowned on by the ASA.

But what about ‘truth in advertising”? The Gold Reef advert carries some lines of decidedly questionable content, including the following absurdity: ‘Metal fatigue is a normal phenomenon in metallic objects. This does not make any these structures unsafe. What’s important is to look at the structural integrity of these structures.”

Try that one on the folks who died when, due to metal fatigue, the vertical stabiliser broke off an Airbus just airborne in New York — Airbus Industrie is renowned for the integrity of its airframe structures. Not only in aviation, there are numberless occasions where metal fatigue has compromised structural integrity, sometimes with fatal results. What the Gold Reef City advert says about metal fatigue is ill-expressed bunkum.

I hope the ASA gets to take a look at this one. It isn’t some commercial claiming that Jock’s New Formula Toothpaste will make your smile whiter and improve your sexual dynamics. This one is dealing in people’s lives.