Ad description
A website banner and a press ad for Vodafone:
a. A banner on Vodafone website, www.vodafone.co.uk, seen in March 2022 stated, “The UK’s Reliable, Award-winning network”. Text underneath the banner stated, “You can rely on our award-winning network to keep you connected to the things and people that matter. See here”. A link directed to another page on the website which featured the text “The UK relies on Vodafone as a network provider as it: i) powers critical national infrastructure and 68% of blue-light services - see our publicsector.vodafone.co.uk page to find out more. ii) has coverage in 99% of UK homes. iii) covers 96% of the UK's landmass; and iv) has won numerous awards”. A further link directed to a list headed “Recent awards won by Vodafone UK”.
b. A press ad for Vodafone seen in April 2022 stated, “On the UK’s reliable award-winning network” alongside a small symbol of a mobile phone mast. Text in smaller font at the bottom of the ad stated, “The UK relies on Vodafone as a network provider as it: i) powers critical national infrastructure and 68% of blue-light services ii) has coverage in 99% of UK homes. iii) covers 96% of the UK. Full details & awards: vodafone.co.uk/network”.
Issue
EE, who believed the claims “The UK’s reliable, award-winning network” and “On the UK’s reliable award-winning network” implied Vodafone were the most reliable network or the only reliable network, challenged whether they were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Vodafone Ltd said that the claim “The UK’s reliable, award-winning network” was not comparative and should be interpreted to mean that Vodafone as a UK Network Provider were reliable and had won awards in the UK.
They said that “The UK’s” was a singular possessive noun, used in the context of the claim to refer to the network provider Vodafone UK, which operated in (i.e., belonged to) the UK. They said Vodafone could be described as the UK’s network because of its extensive coverage across the UK. They said their network was available in 99% of UK homes and across 96% of the UK’s geographical landmass.
They said that “reliable” and “award-winning” were adjectives being used to describe Vodafone UK as a network provider. They said they disagreed that using a singular possessive noun (namely “The UK’s”) in the claim “The UK’s reliable, award-winning network” would in itself be taken to mean that Vodafone UK was the only reliable network in the UK. They believed it would be evident to the average consumer that Vodafone UK was not the only reliable network.
They also disagreed that the claim “the UK’s reliable … network” would be taken to mean Vodafone was the most reliable network in the UK and had they intended for this claim to be comparative, they would have included a quantifier such as “only”, “more” or “most” within the claim itself.
They considered that “reliable, award-winning” did not mean “winning awards for reliability” and did not believe it would be taken to relate to a technical reliability award. They pointed out the inclusion of a comma in ad (a), which they believed would be understood to mean that Vodafone was not only reliable, but had also won numerous awards.
They considered that “reliable” had a broader meaning than being associated with the technicalities of a network, namely being a trusted brand in the UK. They considered that the average consumer would understand reliable to mean trust.
They said they believed the text on their website listed and supported how they could be relied upon as a network and had received awards. The awards they had won related to different aspects of Vodafone as an operator, which included but were not limited to technical network reliability. They believed that having awards that related to different aspects of their organisation was a key factor in giving consumers confidence to rely on them.
They said the text within the ads provided further information as to how they could be relied upon as a network and the awards they had won.
They believed the average consumer would consider the Vodafone UK network to be reliable as it powered integral services in the public sector that British consumers depended on. Its technical performance was in line with various third parties’ technical benchmark standards within the industry and it was a network provider that people in the UK could rely on due to the extent of its coverage.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claims “The UK’s Reliable, Award-winning network” in ad (a) and “On the UK’s reliable award-winning network” in ad (b) to relate to the consistency and connectivity of Vodafone’s service and that Vodafone had also won awards for the service they provided.
We acknowledged that the definite article used, “the”, referred to the “UK” and that the claim did not expressly include a qualifier that Vodafone was the UK’s “most” or “only” reliable network. However, because the ad referred to “the UK”, in conjunction with an adjective describing a feature of a telecoms’ service likely to be valuable to consumers (i.e., “reliable”) within the claim, we nonetheless considered that the average consumer would interpret it as an implied comparative claim that Vodafone had been objectively found to provide the most consistent connectivity amongst all UK telecoms providers.
We noted, for example, that the ads did not state that Vodafone was “a reliable UK network” or “a reliable network in the UK”, nor did the ads refer to “our reliable UK network”. We considered claims phrased in that way would be unlikely to be considered as comparative, depending on the context in which they appeared.
Because we considered that the claims “The UK’s Reliable, Award-winning network” and “On the UK’s reliable award-winning network” were comparative, we required objective substantiation for that comparative and superior claim. We understood that Vodafone had intended to make a non-comparative claim and therefore did not hold such evidence.
We therefore concluded that the claims “The UK’s Reliable, Award-winning network” and “On the UK’s reliable award-winning network” had not been substantiated and were likely to mislead.
The ads 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) and 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. (Comparisons).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Vodafone Ltd not to make an implied comparative claim unless they held objective comparative evidence to substantiate the claim as it would be understood by consumers.
