ASA Adjudication on Jersey Telecom

Ad

A regional press ad, for Jersey Telecom, was headlined "Better coverage Better Service Better value" and featured a table that compared the "JT MyMobile" tariff with Cable & Wireless Jersey Ltd's mobile tariff. Under the heading "JT MyMobile" the table stated "Calls from 3p per minute Texts from 3p Calls to JT mobiles 3p - 7p per min". Under the heading "C&W mobile", the table stated "Calls from 10p per minute Texts from 4p Calls to JT mobiles 15p per minute". Text beneath the table claimed "Our pay monthly mobile plans speak for themselves".

Issue

Cable & Wireless Jersey Ltd (C&W) challenged whether:

1. the claim "Better coverage Better service Better value" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they did not believe the Jersey Telecom tariff referred to in the ad was better value;

2. the comparison was clear and fair, because consumers had to take on additional monthly spend commitments to obtain the cheapest voice and text messaging prices in the ad and

3. the ad was misleading, because in order to obtain calls for 3p per minute or texts for 3p, consumers would have to use exactly 1000 minutes or texts per month, as well as having to take on extra montly spend commitments.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Jersey Telecom said they had employed a consultancy to compare their call success rate with that of C&W and their survey found that Jersey Telecom's network had a higher rate of success than C&W's. They did not send survey data in support of their claim. They argued the claims "Better service Better value" were partly subjective and said they had employed a market research agency to conduct a survey on customer perceptions of service and value. They stated how many respondents gave positive answers about Jersey Telecom but did not give figures for C&W and did not provide the survey data.

2. Jersey Telecom argued the comparison was fair, because it gave the lowest rates available for various elements of service linked to monthly contracts. They pointed out that the ad gave rates "from" the stated price, to make clear that not all calls and texts were available at that rate. They did not send evidence of the calculations on which they based any of the rates in the table.

3. Jersey Telecom argued the ad did not claim that the prices quoted were directly connected to each other. They said they had applied the same principle to their own prices and those of C&W and had given the cheapest available in both cases, but did not send evidence of their calculations.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Jersey Telecom's comments, but considered that, without comparative data that showed their call success rate was better than C&W's, Jersey Telecom had not substantiated the claim "Better coverage". We noted that Jersey Telecom had not shown their research compared consumer perceptions of the customer service provided by Jersey Telecom and C&W. We considered that, in the absence of comparative data that showed consumers perceived Jersey Telecom's customer service was better than C&W's, Jersey Telecom had not substantiated the claim "Better service". We considered the claim "Better value" was capable of being substantiated and that readers were likely to interpret the claim with reference to the table shown in the ad. We did not consider consumer perception research adequate to demonstrate that Jersey Telecom's service offered better value than C&W's. We concluded that the claim "Better coverage Better service Better value" was misleading.

2. Upheld

We considered the presentation of the table implied that it compared two distinct tariffs and the lowest charges associated with those tariffs. We noted that the 3p charge for calls and messages was based on the effective rate charged for an extra 1000 minutes and messages when subscribers paid an extra £30 in addition to the basic tariff rate of £9.99 per month. We did not see evidence that showed how Jersey Telecom had calculated the effective rates for minutes or messages on C&W tariffs, but noted Jersey Telecom had compared the effective rate for the maximum number of extra minutes that could be obtained by their subscribers with the effective rate for inclusive minutes on C&W's lowest tariff. We considered that Jersey Telecom had not compared the most similar tariffs and had not presented their comparison in such a way that readers could make an informed or rational choice. We concluded the comparison was neither clear nor fair.

3. Upheld

We considered the presentation of the table implied that readers could obtain calls charged at 3p per minute and texts for 3p on a tariff for a monthly subscription of £9.99. We noted that the 3p per minute charge and the 3p text charge were effective rates for 1000 extra minutes and 1000 messages when subscribers paid an extra £30 per month. However, we noted that those subscribers would then pay a total subscription of £39.99, which included the 25 inclusive minutes and 25 inclusive texts available on all tariffs from £9.99. We noted that the effective rate for the 1025 inclusive minutes on Jersey Telecom's tariff of £39.99 was 3.9p per minute and that subscribers could only obtain that rate if they used all 1025 minutes within a month. We noted the ad did not make clear either that the featured call rates and message charges were effective rates or that they were effective rates for additional minutes and messages only. We concluded that the ad was misleading.

On points 1-3, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

Action

We told Jersey Mobile to ensure they held suitable evidence to substantiate all claims in future. We told them to ensure that, when comparing their products against those of their competitors, they compared like with like and made clear how any featured call rates could be obtained.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)