ASA Adjudication on Virgin Rail Group Ltd

Ad

An e-mail (a) from Virgin Rail stated "Now really cancel everything" in the subject line. The body of the e-mail showed a picture of a country house hotel, followed by a heading that stated "You're in!" Text underneath stated "Five-star treatment at The Grove awaits you (or) Five-star treatment at The Grove awaits you and your guest. Just make sure you've cancelled everything on 28 May and don't forget to fib if you must. To help the day run smoothly, check the itinerary here (a link followed) then give us a quick call on (a telephone number beginning 0870 followed) to confirm your attendance ..." The e-mail was signed by Natalie Aitken, Traveller Manager.

A second e-mail (b) received approximately four and a half hours later stated "So sorry, we've sent you an email by mistake" in the subject line. The text of the e-mail stated "The email you have just received about a Virgin Trains event at The Grove was a test email and was not supposed to be sent to any of our customers. We realise that we might have got you all excited about the prospect of a day at The Grove, and would like to offer you the chance to win one of three places at this event. We've put your name into a prize draw for you and a guest to attend our event on the 28 May. For full details of this prize draw please check the terms and conditions below. We'll be in touch on 12 May if you are one of the three lucky winners." The terms and conditions that followed stated, among other things, that entry to the draw was automatic.

Issue

1. A recipient, who believed ad (a) was marketing material, challenged whether the claim in ad (b) that it was sent by mistake was misleading, and

2. whether it was clear that ad (b) was a marketing communication designed to follow on from ad (a).

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2. Virgin Rail said the first e-mail, ad (a), was a test e-mail destined for the winners of the promotion but which was sent out in error to potential participants. Virgin Rail supplied internal e-mails dated several days before the test e-mail was sent in error that described the planning of the promotion and an internal e-mail sent the day after the test e-mail was sent in error apologising for it. The second internal e-mail said the test e-mail had been attached to an incorrect mailing list. It said they intended to put procedures in place to prevent a similar mistake occurring again in future. They also sent a list of winners of the day at The Grove.

Assessment

1. & 2. Not upheld

The ASA noted Virgin Rail's explanation that e-mail (a) was sent out in error. We noted the internal e-mails Virgin Rail sent showed the events leading up to and following the mistake and that they had put procedures in place to ensure similar mistakes would not occur again in future. While we understood that the error had led the recipient to question the claim in e-mail (a) and to challenge whether it was clear that e-mail (b) was marketing material, we were satisfied on this occasion that e-mail (a) was sent out in error and that e-mail (b) was not a marketing communication designed to follow on from (a).

On points 1 and 2 we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)