Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for internet search ad for Vodafone, seen on 22 January 2021, stated in large text “Vodafone Official Site – On The UK’s Best Network”. Further text stated “Keep Connecting With Our Unlimited Data Plans On The UK’s Best Network. Our Best Ever Network. Keep Connecting”.
Issue
EE Ltd challenged whether the claim “The UK’s Best Network” was:
1. misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. verifiable.
Response
1. Vodafone Ltd said the claim would normally read “The UK’s Best Network as voted by readers of Trusted Reviews”, but it had appeared as just “The UK’s Best Network” due to a technical error. They had removed the claim on learning of the complaint.
Vodafone said the Trusted Reviews award was made following poll based surveys where users of the Trusted Reviews site were asked which provider they deemed to be the “Best Network Provider”. Users were asked to choose from a list of major UK phone network providers, which included Vodafone, EE, O2, Virgin, Three, BT and giffgaff. The order in which the providers were seen was randomised each time a user clicked on the poll. They said Trusted Reviews received 42,000 votes for the awards of which 1,007 were for the Best Network (there were five other categories which users could vote for). Vodafone received 603 votes (59.88%).
Vodafone said the Trusted Reviews award was based on readers’ subjective overall preference of a network, which they believed was made clear on the ‘Networks’ page of Vodafone’s website. They believed the complete wording of the claim also made it clear to consumers that the claim was based on consumers’ subjective views.
2. Vodafone expressed willingness to make changes to the verification route for the claim. They also said they believed the ‘Networks’ page of their website made it clear that the claim was based on readers’ subjective preference of a network and that a detailed explanation of the technical aspects of the survey should therefore not be necessary.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers were likely to interpret “The UK’s Best Network”, in the context of an ad which stated “Keep Connecting With Our Unlimited Data Plans On The UK’s Best Network” and “Our Best Ever Network. Keep Connecting. Vodafone Global Roaming” as a reference to technical aspects such as coverage and reliability. Because it claimed that Vodafone had been found to be the “best” we considered consumers would see it as an objective comparative claim that Vodafone’s network performed better than the rest of the market in those technical aspects, and that Vodafone had objective evidence to support that.CAP Code rule 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those products. We therefore considered that the basis of the comparison needed to involve an objective component beyond solely customers’ subjective perceptions of their own networks. As such, we expected to see evidence that a range of networks had been rated based on a robustly-conducted comparison of a range of appropriate, relevant and objective performance measures and that Vodafone had received the highest score of all the rated networks.
We understood that the award was based on a mobile poll of users of the Trusted Reviews site where, of 42,000 votes across six categories, 1,007 were for best network. Respondents were invited to choose from a list of seven providers, Vodafone, EE, O2, Virgin, Three, BT and giffgaff, the order of which was randomised each time a user clicked on the poll. Respondents had not been actively sought out to vote but had chosen to do so voluntarily.
We noted that the methodology required respondents to choose which of the seven providers they deemed to be the “Best Network Provider”. We considered that the poll question was very broad and that it was unclear what the criteria were for rating a particular provider as the “Best Network Provider”. We considered respondents were likely to have differing understandings of how well their network provider performed depending on their typical usage habits and requirements. Furthermore, we considered respondents were unlikely to have insight into how their own network provider compared against the others on the list. Overall, we were concerned that the data showed only highly subjective preferences. It was not clear how responses could be compared in a meaningful way to come to a view that one network provider was the “best”. We considered the comparative nature of the claim required an objective component, and it was unclear to us how subjective preference alone would deliver such data.
Vodafone had explained that the claim referred to readers’ subjective overall preference of a network. They therefore did not hold, and so were unable to supply, objective evidence of the kind we considered consumers would expect and which the Code required. We therefore concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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), 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. and 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. Upheld
As in point 1, CAP Code rule 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more verifiable features. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct consumers to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the objective comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate, or ask someone suitably qualified to do so. We considered that in order to understand the basis of the comparison in the claim consumers would need additional information. Vodafone had explained that, because the claim was based on readers’ subjective preference of a network, a detailed explanation of the technical aspects of the survey should not be necessary.
At the bottom of the home page of Vodafone’s website, text stated “UK’s Best Network as voted for by readers of Trusted Reviews – October 2020: This award was awarded based on online votes received by readers of Trusted Reviews. Readers were provided with a list of the major UK networks providers [sic] to vote on based on their customer sentiments. The category ‘Best Network Provider’ received 1,007 votes in total and Vodafone received 603 of those votes (59.88%)”.
We considered the approach of providing information about a comparison immediately and prominently on the landing page to which consumers were taken would be sufficient to ensure a comparison could be verified. In this case, however, the explanation appeared only in small text among other information at the bottom of the landing page and was not immediate or prominent. In addition, as discussed in point 1 above, we considered the claim needed to be backed up by objective evidence which showed Vodafone’s network had been found to perform better in technical aspects such as coverage and reliability than the rest of the market. Because the ad did not include, or direct consumers to, such information, we concluded that the claim was not verifiable.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Vodafone to ensure they held adequate and objective evidence to support comparative claims; that the basis of any comparison was presented clearly; and that ads provided sufficient information to enable consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors or signposted consumers to such information.
