ASA Adjudication on UTV plc

Ad

A TV ad, for UTV telephony services. On-screen text stated "FACT." A voiceover stated "With UTV Talk, evening and weekend calls from anywhere in Ireland to anywhere in Ireland or the UK cost 0p for up to 60 minutes." Further on-screen text stated "FACT 50 % cheaper than BT BT Together Option 2 line rental 1st Jan 2006", while the voiceover continued "UTV Talk are 50% cheaper than BT ..."

Issue

British Telecommunications plc (BT) challenged the claim "UTV Talk are 50% cheaper than BT."

BCAP TV Code

Response

UTV Internet Ltd (UTV) said they based the "50% cheaper" claim on the £6 price difference between BT Together Option 2's £16.50 tariff and UTV's £10.50 tariff for its equivalent service.  They said they believed that the difference offered a 57% saving and that their claim was therefore accurate.  UTV pointed out that the ad made clear that the comparison was based on prices valid as at 1 January 2006, although they acknowledged that BT had since reduced their prices and assured the ASA that future ads would be amended to reflect that change.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said UTV had told them that they monitored BT's pricing at all times but had mistakenly understood the date of the price change to be 1 October, when it actually occurred on 1 August.  BACC confirmed that the ad had now been taken off air but believed the clear basis of the price comparison went some way to mitigating the situation.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted UTV mistook the implementation date of BT's new tariffs.  Although we acknowledged that the basis for the comparison was stated in the ad, we considered that this did not relieve UTV of the responsibility to ensure the price comparison in the ad was an accurate representation of the price difference between the two services at the time it was broadcast.  We further considered that, to justify the claim "50% cheaper", UTV needed to show that the difference between their tariff and BT's amounted to 50% of the more expensive tariff.  Because it did not, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing).

Action

We told UTV and BACC to ensure the accuracy of savings claims in future ads.  The ad should not be shown again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)