ASA Adjudication on Jersey Airtel Ltd

Ad

A poster and a national press ad for Airtel-Vodafone:

a. the poster appeared on a bus shelter outside Jersey airport and stated "Switch to Airtel-Vodafone for the Vodafone network in Jersey".

b. the national press ad was headed "Enjoy the best value UK roaming rates ... with simple tariffs and great prices!" and stated "Our simple easy to understand roaming tariffs have been created to give you the very best value for money. So, no more high roaming charges when you go to the UK. All calls feature a one time connection charge of 15p, and then just 20p per talk-time minute. For example, a 3 minute call would cost just 75p!*"

Issue

Jersey Telecom Ltd challenged whether the claim:

1. "Switch to Airtel-Vodafone for the Vodafone network in Jersey" in ad (a) was misleading, because Airtel-Vodafone was not part of the UK Vodafone network and Vodafone customers would therefore be subject to roaming charges; and

2. "best value UK roaming rates" in ad (b) was misleading, because they believed some charges for roaming rates were cheaper with other operators.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Airtel-Vodafone (Airtel) said the Vodafone Group, during the last two years, had entered into arrangements with operators in countries where they did not hold an equity stake and under the terms of those Partner Network agreements the group and its partner networks co-operated in the development and marketing of global services under dual brand logos. Airtel said they tried to encourage all Vodafone customers (whether part of the partner network or part of the Vodafone Group) to roam on each other's networks when abroad. They said that was also the aim of the advertising campaign; to encourage Vodafone customers from other countries to use the Airtel-Vodafone network for roaming when they were in Jersey. They said Vodafone had used similar campaigns at other airports around the world without complaint.

Airtel pointed out that the ad stated "switch to Airtel-Vodafone" and said they believed that made clear that customers would be 'switching' to another network and would therefore be subject to roaming charges. They believed most customers were used to the fact that if they went abroad they would have to roam and they would not expect to be able to use their home network in a foreign country. They therefore believed the ad was not misleading.

2. Airtel said ad (b) was part of their launch campaign to inform customers of their new direct UK roaming agreement with Vodafone UK. They said the ad was intended to highlight that their simple price structure was the best value when compared with their competitors, Jersey Telecom and Sure (Cable & Wireless), and to highlight the simple structure of the tariffs they would charge; a one time connection fee of 15 pence, then 20 pence for every minute of use. They said the ad outlined a three-minute call which cost 75 pence and said that Jersey Telecom and Sure both charged 105 pence for the same call. They said the roaming tariffs to which the complainant had referred were out of date. They said their UK direct roaming agreement with Vodafone UK came into effect on 15 October 2007 and replaced their indirect roaming charges.  

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the ad was intended to encourage Vodafone customers to roam on the Airtel-Vodafone network while they were visiting Jersey.  We noted Airtel had entered into a partnership agreement with Vodafone, which meant they co-operated in the development and marketing of services under a dual brand logo.  

We noted the ad appeared directly outside Jersey airport and could therefore influence which network a consumer chose to use while they were visiting Jersey. We considered that Vodafone consumers might infer from the wording "switch to Airtel-Vodafone for the Vodafone network in Jersey" that by using the Airtel-Vodafone network whilst they were in Jersey they would be subject to the same call charges as they were when using the Vodafone network in the UK. Because customers would be subject to roaming charges as with any other network they might switch to in Jersey, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Not upheld

The ASA noted the claim "best value UK roaming rates" was based on Airtels direct roaming charges, following their partnership with the Vodafone group.  

We noted Airtel had two main competitors in Jersey: Jersey Telecom and Sure. We noted those companies charged 105 pence for a three-minute call within the UK that would cost 75 pence with Airtel. We noted, however, that their competitors charged 35 pence per minute for those UK calls and therefore the price for a one-minute call would be the same with any operator. Nevertheless, we also noted that the cost for incoming calls and text messages with Airtel was 15 pence per minute or per text and that was cheaper than either of their competitors charges for the same services. We also noted that international calls made from the UK whilst roaming on Airtel were cheaper than those of Jersey Telecom and Sure.  

We considered that consumers were likely to understand from the claim "best value UK roaming rates" that Airtels roaming charges were cheaper overall than those of their competitors. Although their roaming charges for a one-minute call within the UK were the same as their competitors, because they were cheaper for calls over one minute, for incoming calls, text messages and international calls, we concluded that the claim was justified and unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but we did not find it in breach.

Action

We told Airtel not to repeat the claim "Switch to Airtel-Vodafone for the Vodafone network in Jersey" without qualification in future.  We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team for their future advertising.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)