National School Of Business — advertising standards council of india finds dr. sridhara murthy guilty o[censored]ploading misleading information in www.shiksha.com

Address:	560078
Website:	www.nsbindia.org

Dear aishik gupta,

Re: ccc recommendation– 1706-c.453 – your complaint against the advertisement of “national school of business"
—
The complaint was considered by the consumer complaints council (Ccc) at their meeting.

The asci had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an opportunity for personal hearing with the asci secretariat which they however availed twice through a teleconference and submitted their written response.

The advertiser stated in their response in respect of their claim, “100% placement track record with average salary package of 4.3 lpa for 2016 batch”, that their advertisement talks about the placement data of 2016 group only. They further stated that placement support was offered to only such students who qualified for the same; and that such qualifications include: (1) securing pass grade in all subjects; (2) completing the prescribed pre-placement module that focuses on training students for corporate placements; (3) must not have been removed from the placement seeker list due to non-compliance; (4) must have placed a formal request for placement and have signed compliance guidelines; (5) good character and behaviour. They further stated that they had “placed all students who met the above criteria and the copies of the offer letters has been attached”; that they had 70 students who qualified in 2016 for the placement support and all of them were given interview opportunities; that capable students cleared the interviews and were placed by respective companies.in respect of offer letters, they added that “offer letters are personal to the candidate and the employer and will not be publicized”.

The ccc noted the glaring inconsistencies between the claim of the advertiser and their response. They had stated in their claim in the advertisement: “100% placement track record with average salary package of 4.3 lpa for 2016 batch”, which signifies that every single student who had passed out of their college had obtained a placement; whereas, in their justification, they stated that “capable students cleared the interviews and were placed by respective companies”, which indicates that all the students who had passed out of their college were not successful in obtaining placements; and counters their claim of “100% placements”; and further there was no mention whatsoever in the advertiser’s response, about the average salary package claimed in the advertisement. The ccc concluded that the claim, “100% placement track record with average salary package of 4.3 lpa for 2016 batch”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students. The advertiser did not provide evidence to prove that students were offered the claimed salary packages. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement contravened clause 4 (A) of guidelines for advertising of educational institutions and programs as well as chapters i.1 and i.4 of the asci code. This part of the complaint was accordingly upheld.

In respect of their claim “ranked amongst top 30 colleges in india and top 10 mba colleges in south india for placement by silicon india 2016”, the advertiser stated that many educational institutions across india use this ranking system to advertise their programs. The ccc noted that the advertiser did not provide the details of the process as to how the selection was done i. E. Survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar colleges that were part of the survey and the outcome of the survey.in the absence of these data, the ccc concluded that the claim, “ranked amongst top 30 colleges in india and top 10 mba colleges in south india for placement by silicon india 2016”, was not substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement contravened guidelines for advertising of educational institutions and programs as well as chapters i.1 and i.4 of the asci code. This part of the complaint was accordingly upheld.

In respect of the complaints that the"college has just 1 building; it doesn't have any indoor sports facility; this is a fake information and fake photograph", “the college doesn't have any computer lab, and that a fake photograph is uploaded” the advertiser stated in their response that it is true that the college has only one building; but that the college has a basic indoor sports facility in the fifth floor of the institute with provision for playing caroms, chess etc. And that the college has recently set up a computer lab in the learning block, and that the complainant may not be aware of the relocation of the computer lab. They added that the college leases out facilities for periodical use and the relatedpictures are used; and that every student who comes to take admission is shown the entire institute facility and everything is open to them to aid decision making. The ccc did not agree with the advertiser’s contention for using a picture of not using the real and currently existing infrastructure. The ccc therefore concluded that the claims were not substantiated and were misleading. Hence, the advertisement has contravened the provisions of chapter i.1 and i.4 of the asci code. This part of the advertisement was accordingly upheld.

In respect of the two parts of complaint relating to the questions raised by the complainant, “who were the 32 alumni, what were their names, and basis for the claim of compensation of 3.65 lakh per annum, and to provide their monthly pay check as evidence”; and “who were those 65 alumni, names? Evidence for this claim along with proof whether the respective alumni works in the respective company at the respective business function. Ask dr. Sridhara murthy to provide work certificate of each of the 65 alumni", the advertiser stated that the placement statistics put on shiksha.com about alumni is the data compiled by shiksha.com itself from its sister portal "naukri.com". The source of the data is clearly indicated in the same page. It is not the subject matter of discussion by the nsb as it is not the information posted by nsb. This is the actual data gathered by shiksha.com as explained above and the methodology followed by shiksha.com in coming out with the information, as given by shiksha.com, can be read in the attachment. Based on this response and in the absence of claim support data, the ccc concluded that the claims, “average annual salary details of 32 alumni of this course”, “employment details of 65 alumni of this course”, “3.65 lakh (Inr)”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration the website advertisement contravened guidelines for advertising of educational institutions and programs as well as chapters i.1 and i.4 of the asci code. This part of the complaint was accordingly upheld.

We have advised the advertiser to withdraw or modify the said advertisement by august 16, 2017. You may note that while asci believes in persuation to ensure self regulation in advertising content, in case of continued non-compliance, alternate remedies are available to consumers to approach an appropriate forum such as state consumer forum.

Thank you for having referred this complaint to us.

Assuring you of our services in the pursuit of self-regulation in advertising.

Yours faithfully,

Riddhi dharod
Executive - complaints handling
The advertising standards council of india