I was astonished to read the outrageous article by correspondent Efi Landau which appeared in the Communications section of "Globes" of 24-25 March 1997 under the headline "The Cellcom Method". The headline, the sub-heading, and the body of the article were remarkable for one-sidedness and bias which can only make one wonder.
The article assails Cellcom’s marketing and advertising policy in general, and then spills over into a severe personal attack on the company’s vice president, Mr Oren Most, who enjoys widespread professional esteem within the company and in professional circles, and who was chosen as "Marketing Personality" in August 1996 by the Israel Advertisers Association.
I take a dim view of the fact that before such a one-sided article was published we were deprived of the basic right of responding to the allegations presented in it. The offence is considerably aggravated by the fact that "Globes" enjoys an "open line" to the company’s management, for any query, any day of the week and at any hour of the day.
Had the reporter and the editorial staff utilised this "open door" privilege, the publication in the article of incorrect details masquerading as facts would have been avoided. For example:
(Paragraph 3) "However, the credibility problem didn’t go away. There were complaints in the past about the company’s advertisements not telling consumers the whole truth…." We have no knowledge of such advertisements, or of the past complaints which the reporter refers to, and he himself doesn’t trouble to detail them. Incidentally, the connection between the finding of lack of credibility, complaints, and the mention of the word "only" after stating a charge rate, is beyond my comprehension.
As to the special "Mobile Now" offer on the latest Ericsson model, Cellcom quoted in its advertisement full information on what the consumer would be required to pay for this deal. The company chose, as a goodwill gesture, in the light of claims of insufficient clarity in its advertisements, to make the matter more emphatically clear.
Cellcom is known for its fair and trustworthy approach to consumers, and for its efforts to turn cellular telephones and services into a popular and widespread means of communication in Israel, serving hundreds of thousands of subscribers.
I hereby strongly protest against the article, the spirit in which it was written, and the way it was published.