Ad description
A TV ad, a radio ad and a website for Vodafone broadband, seen in March 2018:
a. The TV ad featured the actor Martin Freeman playing a video game online with a second player, using a headset to communicate. When the game lost connection, the second player stated "Your broadband is rubbish". A voice-over stated "Vodafone guarantee your home broadband speeds or money off until it's fixed". On-screen text stated “Claim a discount if sync speed is below 25Mbps for Superfast 1 (Up to 38Mbps) & 55Mbps for Superfast 2 (up to 76Mbps)”.
b. The radio ad featured the actor Martin Freeman playing a video game online with a second player. He stated "Oh yes! Come on in!". Shortly after, the game lost connection and the second player stated "Your internet's gone again has it? What's the point in playing this game if your broadband keeps going? Just get Vodafone!". A voice-over stated "Vodafone guarantee your home broadband speeds or money off until it's fixed".
c. The website www.vodafone.co.uk stated "The Ultimate Speed Guarantee...A home broadband guarantee that's out of this world". Further text stated "Guaranteed Speeds on your Superfast home broadband or money off until it's fixed". Smaller text stated "Our Ultimate Speed Guarantee means you get the best broadband speed available to you, or we'll give you a discount off your monthly bill until we can get you there", and "Our Ultimate Speed Guarantee is available to you if your sync speed is lower than the minimum superfast speeds".
Issue
Nine complainants, including British Telecommunications Plc challenged whether the speed guarantee claims in ads (a) to (c) were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Vodafone Ltd stated that their Ultimate Speed Guarantee was understood by customers as a multi-layered offer of a guarantee of minimum speed or a 15% discount off their monthly bill until their sync speed returned to the minimum speed promised.
Vodafone stated that they chose to use sync speed, the speed received by a customer’s router, as a measurement because it was the speed that both they and Openreach were able to exert control over, and stated that their website explained how the guarantee worked, what the minimum speed was that should have been achieved and what to do if it was not received.
Vodafone stated that the TV and radio ads created a scenario that customers would understand to represent broadband speed and the relatable frustrations experienced. They stated that the TV, radio and website advertisements neither misled nor omitted material information, explaining that the radio ad referred customers to their website for more comprehensive information and that the TV ad made clear what the minimum speed was and when customers qualified for a discount through the on-screen text.
Clearcast stated that Vodafone provided them with evidence of the percentage of their customer base who received at least the minimum speed depending on their plan. They stated that they also received an assurance from Vodafone that when a customer’s minimum speed was not achieved, they had the option to apply for a discount, which would be given until the guaranteed speed was met again.
Radiocentre stated that they were satisfied that the guarantee being offered was in place and given that the ad made clear what would happen should speed fall below the guaranteed level, they did not feel that listeners would be misled. They stated that the legal terms clarified that it was sync speed that was covered by the guarantee.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that both ads (a) and (b) portrayed a scenario where an internet connection was lost while playing an online game and acknowledged Vodafone’s comments that the ads created a scenario relatable to frustrations experienced by consumers. The second player in ad (a) stated “Your broadband is rubbish … just get Vodafone”, while in ad (b) they said “Your internet’s gone again has it? What’s the point in playing this game if your broadband keeps going? Just get Vodafone”. Both ads also included the claim “Vodafone guarantee your home broadband speeds or money off until it’s fixed”. We considered that the combination of the ads’ narratives and the explicit claims made would lead consumers to interpret both ads to mean that Vodafone could guarantee a minimum speed that was fast enough that customers did not experience common issues such as buffering when using their devices in the home to perform typical online activities. While they would also understand that they would receive a discount to their bill if they experienced such problems, that was of secondary importance to the guarantee of sufficiently fast speeds. We also considered that consumers would interpret the headline claim “The Ultimate Speed Guarantee” and further text which stated “or money off until its fixed” in ad (c) to mean that the offer was of such high standard that it would ensure customers received at least the minimum speed they needed to carry out typical online activities without experiencing issues associated with slow speeds, or a discount applied to their bill until that minimum speed returned.
We noted that the on-screen text in ad (a) stated “Claim a discount if sync speed is below 25Mbps for Superfast 1 (Up to 38Mbps) & 55Mbps for Superfast 2 (up to 76Mbps)” and the voice-over in ad (b) stated “guaranteed minimum sync speed from your local exchange and your router or claim money off your next bill”. Text in ad (c) stated “Get 15% off your bill if your sync speed is lower than our guarantee”. We considered that consumers were unlikely to know the technical definition of “sync speed”, or how it differed from throughput speed, which was the more appropriate measure of the speed they would experience when using their home broadband.
We understood that sync speed referred to the maximum speed the router on any given connection was able to receive, and did not take into account factors including the traffic on the line. In contrast, the throughput speed factored in traffic and other limitations. We noted Vodafone’s comments that sync speed was chosen as a measurement as opposed to throughput speed because it was something that both they and Openreach were able to exert control over. However, we considered that it was a less accurate measure of the speed that customers were likely to experience when using their devices in the home. We were concerned that any guarantee based on sync speeds, which were not an accurate measure of the speeds experienced by customers on their devices, was likely to result in some customers experiencing problems associated with slow speeds but still not qualifying for the guarantee.
Notwithstanding those concerns that sync speed was chosen as an appropriate measure, we understood that the majority of Vodafone’s customers received at least the speeds stated as the minimums required for the guarantee to be engaged, but a significant minority did not. We were concerned that the ad promoted a speed guarantee when a significant number of customers were known to receive slower speeds at the router than what had been guaranteed. We were also concerned that the guarantee did not refer to upload speeds, which also had a bearing on the performance of home broadband when performing certain tasks, including online gaming (the scenario depicted in the ads).
Because the ads suggested that Vodafone could guarantee minimum speeds that were fast enough that customers did not experience common issues such as buffering when using their devices in the home to perform typical online activities, when customers did experience such issues but did not qualify for the guarantee, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
Ads (a) and (b) breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
2).
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Exaggeration).
Ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
2).
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Exaggeration).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Vodafone Ltd to ensure their future advertising did not mislead by stating or implying that their broadband ensured minimum speeds that were fast enough that customers did not experience common issues such as buffering when using their devices in the home to perform typical online activities, or that customers who experienced such issues would qualify for a reduction to their bill.
