ASA Adjudication on National Westminster Bank plc

Ad

A TV ad for NatWest showed three men in an office discussing a letter of complaint from a customer about long queues at a local bank. One of them stated "… there's one simple way to stop all the queues in the branches, we close the branch …". A voiceover stated "There is another way. Other banks may be closing branches, but NatWest are opening more and keeping more open on Saturdays. NatWest another way".

Issue

The complainants, Campaign for Community Banking Services, challenged whether the claim "Other banks may be closing branches, but NatWest are opening more and keeping more open on Saturdays" was misleading. They believed NatWest, like other banks, was opening some branches in city areas but closing branches in rural areas. They argued that some of NatWests branch openings were in fact branch relocations. They asserted that only three new NatWest branches were scheduled to open in the future; they believed that was an insignificant number.

BCAP TV Code

Response

NatWest said they made three related claims in the ad: "Other banks may be closing branches", "NatWest are opening more" and "NatWest are keeping more open on Saturdays". They believed those claims fairly reflected the approach of NatWest compared with that of their key rivals.

They said it was well documented that other major banks were closing significant numbers of branches. They referred to newspaper articles, which gave Barclays, Lloyds and HSBC as examples of banks that were closing branches. They argued that the forthcoming closure of branches by those banks was consistent with their previous activity, when their networks had been systematically reduced in an ongoing effort to save costs.

They explained that, by direct contrast, NatWest had adopted a different commercial strategy. They said they had invested heavily in their network over the previous seven years and had put local branches and communities at the heart of their business and marketing, because they believed customers valued face-to-face, branch-based contact; they had, therefore, discontinued their branch closure programme in 2000. They argued that, while other banks continued to close significant numbers of branches, NatWest had introduced a policy whereby branches would not be closed and yet network numbers would be maintained. They acknowledged that four NatWest branches had closed over the past 12 months but explained that those closures were due to circumstances beyond NatWests control; they did not manage the lease of those properties. They pointed out that they had opened four new branches over the past 12 months in Croydon, Penge, Hayes End and Brixton. They said three more branches would open within the next six months and it was possible that more would open within the next 12 months. They asserted that those extra branches were not relocations. NatWest said, in addition, they had increased the number of branches open on a Saturday by 19.9% since the start of 2006.

They added that, while they made no reference to it in the ad, they were not closing branches in rural areas and relocating to urban ones. They pointed out that they had increased their commitment to rural banking through their Mobile Banking service, which was born from the rationale that remote areas were underrepresented financially and suffered as a result of branch rationalisation by other banks. They sent a news article, which described how the NatWest Mobile Service was already in place in Cornwall and South Wales and was due to be extended to take in Devon and Cumbria.

The Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) explained that NatWest's comparative advertising had been running for several years. They said NatWest had halted their branch closure policy and had introduced a programme of branch opening, which, they pointed out, was against the trend of the industry.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the complainants' concern that the price for the establishment of newly opened branches, by NatWest as well as other banks, seemed to be the closure of rural neighbourhood divisions. In addition, they argued that the number of branch openings that was planned by NatWest was insignificant in the context of overall network numbers and believed none were planned in areas which had no other access to branch-banking facilities.

We considered, however, that the ad did not imply NatWest were opening branches in rural locations, but rather that, unlike some other banks, which had branch-closing policies, NatWest were increasing their branch numbers and opening more branches on a Saturday than they had previously.

We acknowledged that NatWest had been forced to make a small number of branch closures due to circumstances beyond their control, but understood that, despite those closures, the overall network numbers were due to increase. We noted NatWest did not specify a number of branches by which they intended to increase their network, but considered that, because their branch numbers would increase over the next 12 months, and those new branches were not relocations, and because the number of NatWest branches open on a Saturday had also gone up, the claim "Other banks may be closing branches, but NatWest are opening more and keeping more open on Saturdays" was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)