Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, paid-for X (formerly Twitter) ad and website for Vodafone:
a. The TV ad, seen on 21 March 2024 featured a voice-over that stated, “The Great British broadband switch is here. And millions of BT customers across the UK are realising they can switch to Vodafone and get the same broadband for less. That’s right, the same broadband for less. Now is a great time to switch to Vodafone. Join the Great British broadband switch. Search Vodafone broadband to see what you could save.”
Small on-screen text displayed throughout the ad stated “Vodafone new customers, 24m plans (on Openreach network) pay less on avg vs BT’s public prices for comparable existing customers [sic] plans, as of March 2024, verify: Vodafone.co.uk/broadband”.
b. The paid-for X ad, seen on 8 April 2024, stated “Get the same broadband technology for less when you switch from BT to Vodafone” in both the caption and accompanying image. Small text at the bottom of the image stated “Vodafone new customers, 24m plans (Openreach network Full Fibre technology) pay less on avg vs BT’s public prices for comparable existing customers’ plans, as of March 2024, verify: Vodafone.co.uk/broadband”. Text underneath the image stated “The Great British Broadband Switch”.
c. A page on Vodafone’s website, www.vodafone.co.uk, seen on 26 April 2024 , relating to Vodafone’s home broadband offerings, stated “Our best broadband deals Switch from BT to Vodafone and get the same broadband for less” and “THE GREAT BRITISH BROADBAND SWITCH". Further down the page a subheading stated “Same broadband and landline for less Same technology, same network – and it’s never been easier to switch. At Vodafone, we use the same technology as BT but we’ll cost you less”. A table underneath compared aspects of Vodafone’s and BT’s ‘Full Fibre 2’ plans, including speed, price and contract length. Further detail explained the basis of the calculation in a drop-down box, which also included a link to a page that hosted a pdf document with verification information.
Issue
British Telecommunications plc (BT) challenged whether the claims:
1. in all three ads that Vodafone provided the “same broadband”, or the same broadband “technology”, as BT for less, were misleading and could be substantiated, because they believed Vodafone’s broadband did not provide the same performance; and
2. “millions of BT customers across the UK are realising they can switch to Vodafone and get the same broadband for less” in ad (a) was misleading and could be substantiated, because they did not believe millions of BT customers had switched or were considering doing so.
Response
1. Vodafone Ltd said the purpose of the campaign was to educate consumers that broadband services that were being delivered using the same network technology tended to perform similarly, and that ultimately that could help them save money. They said consumers very often did not understand the technicalities of broadband services and ended up paying a lot more for negligible performance differences between competitor providers, which often fluctuated. They said improved performance could be achieved in numerous ways, including ways that were outside of the providers’ control. However, they said that Ofcom had confirmed there were few differences between comparable services offered by providers that used the same wholesale input from Openreach.
The references to the “same broadband” and the “same broadband technology” were based on an Ofcom technical report published in September 2023. The report reviewed UK home broadband performance during March 2023. Its purpose was to understand broadband performance in UK households, using data predominantly collected by an independent third party. Vodafone considered a key finding was that performance varied by plan and technology, but “[…] broadband services using the same wholesale input tended to perform similarly”, and that Ofcom “[…] found few differences between comparable services offered by providers such as BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky and TalkTalk, which use the same Openreach wholesale inputs.” They acknowledged that the report did not use the word “same” to describe broadband performance across providers, but given that Ofcom was of the view that performance was similar, Vodafone considered the wording in the ads was adequate.
Vodafone said that small print in the ads made clear that the comparison related to services delivered via the same “wholesale input”, by referencing the Openreach network. For example, the TV ad stated “[…] 24m plans (on Openreach network) pay less on avg vs BT’s public prices for comparable existing customers [sic] plans […]”. The small print also directed viewers to Vodafone’s website where a verification document included information which explained the reasoning behind the ads’ reference to the “same broadband”.
The network technologies encompassed by the claims in ads (a) and (c) were Openreach Single order Generic Ethernet Access (SoGEA, also known as Fibre-to-the-cabinet or FTTC) and Openreach Fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP). SoGEA was defined as partial fibre broadband using fibre optic cable from the exchange to the nearest street cabinet, and then copper cable from the street cabinet to the home. FTTP used fibre optic cable all the way from the local exchange to the home. The claim in ad (b), which referred to “Openreach network Full Fibre technology” in the small print, related to Openreach FTTP specifically.
Vodafone said that any average consumer could understand that, given the same method or technology being used, they would be getting the same broadband.
They recognised that the references to broadband “technology” in the claims in the X and website ads could be seen as providing further clarification, by highlighting that they were addressing the technology side of the broadband. However, they firmly believed that the claims which did not refer to “broadband technology” were not misleading to consumers, because the broadband being delivered using the same wholesale input performed similarly, and that was adequately substantiated.
They provided tables in which they compared the average price per month of Vodafone and BT plans. One table related to March 2024 only, and the other averaged prices between March 2023 and March 2024. The compared plans used the same network technologies and provided the same speeds, with two exceptions: the “Fibre 1” products from both providers, using SoGEA, where BT offered speeds of 50 Mbps and Vodafone 38 Mbps; and the fastest Full Fibre plans, using FTTP, where BT offered speeds of 900 Mbps and Vodafone 910 Mbps. Vodafone’s prices were cheaper in all instances.
Responding in relation to the TV ad (a), Clearcast said they had requested Vodafone show them the basis for the comparison, emphasising that it should be like-for-like across all their broadband plans. Vodafone had confirmed that Vodafone and BT used the same technology for their Fibre 1 and Fibre 2 plans, and provided the Ofcom technical report in support. That confirmed that broadband services using the same wholesale input all performed similarly.
Vodafone also provided Clearcast with evidence that they offered the same broadband plans as BT (i.e., the same technology and same speed) for less. The data showed they were cheaper for broadband at the time the ad would first be broadcast, as well as averaged over the previous year. Clearcast had requested that Vodafone add on-screen text to clarify what the claim was based on and to provide viewers with a website address where they could review the details of the comparison.
2. Vodafone understood BT had around eight million home broadband customers, based on BT’s own public financial reporting. Because Vodafone’s comparable home broadband services were cheaper, if all those millions of BT customers switched to Vodafone, they would save money. They said the purpose of the claim “millions of BT customers across the UK are realising they can switch to Vodafone and get the same broadband for less” was to bring BT’s customer base to the realisation that switching could save money. The wording that customers “are realising” indicated a trend or movement.
Clearcast said they had approved the claim “millions of customers” on the basis that BT’s broadband customer base was, at the time, estimated at eight million. Because Vodafone had demonstrated to them that switching to Vodafone from BT could bring savings for customers, they felt that was sufficient rationale to support the claim.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The TV ad, ad (a), stated that BT customers could get “the same broadband” with Vodafone. It featured visuals of a red light zooming along streets and between buildings, cut with shots of people in their homes using internet-connected devices and noticing the red light as it went past their window. The ASA considered that a significant proportion of viewers would understand the claim’s reference to “the same” broadband to mean that the performance of Vodafone’s broadband services would be nearly identical to BT’s.
Reinforced by the visuals, we considered the claim would be understood to refer to the performance a consumer would experience when connecting to their broadband, based on the entire connection. We understood the entire connection included the internet service provider’s (ISP) core network, the Openreach network, its connection into the home, and the connection between the router and any internet-enabled device. While the small on-screen text stated “24m plans (on Openreach network)” we considered it was not clearly linked to the main claim, nor was it worded in such a way that it clarified that the main claim was intended to refer only to that part of the connection comprised of Openreach’s network. Notwithstanding that, we considered that many consumers would not be familiar with the various technical elements of the broadband network infrastructure and so would not know what was meant by “on Openreach network”.
The X ad stated in the caption and on the accompanying image that BT customers who switched to Vodafone could get “the same broadband technology”. We considered consumers would understand the claim in the same way as “the same broadband”, albeit that the nearly identical performance could be specifically ascribed to nearly identical technology over the entire connection.
Text on the image included “(Openreach network Full Fibre technology)”. We considered most consumers were likely to overlook this because it was in very small font. However, even those who read it would interpret it, in the context of the full wording, to mean that the price comparison related only to comparable “Full Fibre” (FTTP) plans. They would not understand it to mean that the main claim was intended to refer only to the part of the internet connection comprised of Openreach’s network. Additionally, as referenced above, many consumers would not know what was meant by “Openreach network”.
The website, ad (c), featured the claim “the same broadband” at the top of the page. The claim was repeated further down the page alongside references to the “same technology” and “same network”. In that context, we considered the claims would together be understood in the same way as the claim in ad (b). The webpage also included reference to aspects of Vodafone’s Wi-Fi as being a reason to switch, which we considered reinforced the impression that the claim related to performance based on the entire internet connection. Additionally, while the webpage focused on “Full Fibre” plans, we considered consumers would not interpret that to mean that the “same” claims were intended to refer only to the part of the internet connection comprised of Openreach’s network.
BT’s complaint focused on the fact that ISPs had their own core networks, to which the Openreach network connected. The core networks included elements over which they had direct control, which could be adjusted to affect performance. They argued that the broadband provided by different ISPs therefore was not “the same”. We understood that aspects of core networks could differ between ISPs. That could include, for example, their specific peering and transit networks, and actions they took to optimise performance such as optimising configurations, load balancing, or using the most advanced hardware and software.
We considered that consumers would interpret the claims in all three ads as having the primary meaning that, in practice, BT customers who switched to Vodafone would get nearly identical broadband performance. We expected to see evidence that was the case. However, we also considered the “same broadband technology” claims in ads (b) and (c) ascribed the performance to the use of nearly identical technology. We therefore expected to see substantiation that Vodafone’s core network was nearly identical to BT’s in support of those claims, but we had not seen evidence in that regard.
We reviewed the Ofcom report. We acknowledged the report’s summary statement that comparable services which used the same Openreach infrastructure “tended to perform similarly” and that they “found few differences”. However, we considered it was therefore clear that there were some differences in performance; the services were not nearly identical in their performance. We also noted that the report’s reference to finding “few differences” between comparable services mentioned several specific providers including BT, but not Vodafone. We concluded the report’s summary statement was therefore not adequate to support Vodafone’s advertising claims that they provided the “same broadband” and the “same broadband technology” as BT, as interpreted by consumers.
We understood Vodafone offered six broadband plans which were comparable to BT plans: two FTTC and four FTTP. However, the Ofcom report included data on only one Vodafone broadband service – their 67 Mbps FTTC plan. While the report included data for a comparable BT service, the evidence did not relate to all six of the broadband plans included in the ads’ comparisons. The data was also collected in March 2023, one year before the ads were published. Furthermore, we understood that the performance metric data collated in the Ofcom report was collected at the router, rather than by connected devices. We acknowledged this was a robust methodology which factored out the potential for metrics to be affected by Wi-Fi bandwidth. However, because the claims in the ads would be understood to relate to the full internet connection up to the device, rather than to the router, we considered the data did not support the claims. For those reasons, we considered the comparative data in the Ofcom report did not support the advertising claims as they would be understood by consumers.
We had not seen evidence which supported claims that BT customers who switched to Vodafone would, in practice, get nearly identical performance, including through the use of nearly identical technology. Therefore, we concluded the claims “the same broadband” and “the same broadband technology” had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price comparisons).Ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
The TV ad (a) stated that “millions of BT customers across the UK are realising they can switch to Vodafone and get the same broadband for less”. We considered that claim would be understood by viewers to be an objective claim that millions of people had come to this realisation already and had either switched from BT to Vodafone or were actively considering doing so. We further considered that the impression that there was a growing trend of people switching from BT to Vodafone was likely to have a more persuasive effect in encouraging viewers to look into switching than if the ad had not referenced that “millions of BT customers […] are realising they can switch”.
Vodafone had said the purpose of the ad was to bring BT’s customer base to the realisation that switching could save them money. The ad itself was therefore intended to educate BT customers about Vodafone’s pricing compared to BT, rather than informing them of an evidenced trend of people switching that was already occurring. Because we had not seen evidence to substantiate the claim that millions of BT broadband customers already had switched, or were actively considering switching, to Vodafone, we concluded the claim was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Vodafone Ltd not to state or imply that their broadband services provided a nearly identical performance to BT’s services, including through the use of nearly identical technology, unless they held evidence to support those claims. We also told them not to state or imply that millions of BT broadband customers already had switched, or were actively considering switching, to Vodafone unless they held evidence.
