ASA Adjudication on Text Marketer Ltd

Ad

Claims on a website, CompareBulkSMSPrices, on 11 April 2011, stated "The latest up to date prices for Bulk SMS - checked 6 days ago ... With hundreds of Bulk SMS suppliers around the world, our mission is to stay up to date with the cheapest and best deals, the best technology and customer service tools". Underneath, a table headed "The Main Price Comparison Chart" included a list of companies and details of their bulk SMS services. The company listed as "The Current Number 1" was Text Marketer. Text in the table next to Text Marketer stated "*Lowest prices *Most established *Credits don't expire *1 credit = 1 message OFFER: Use promo code COMPARE on sign up for free 100 credits!". Further text under the home page heading "About Us" stated "We are a no fee site and we do not take commission from any of the companies featured ... This site is maintained by Text Marketer Ltd".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claim that Text Marketer offered the lowest prices was misleading and could be substantiated, because he had found the same product cheaper with a different provider; and

2. the website misleadingly implied that it was an independent price comparison site, whereas he believed the comparison was compiled by Text Marketer, who were listed as the current number one provider.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

Response

1. Text Marketer Ltd (Text Marketer) said they only compared long-standing companies they considered to be reputable and would themselves use. They explained that, although there were cheaper bulk SMS suppliers than those featured on the website, because they did not offer a quality service they were not included in the comparison. Text Marketer explained that, whilst there were many factors they took into account when assessing quality, the main criteria was the length of time the company had been established, and for that reason they included a "Site Established" column in the comparison table. They believed the fact they only compared the cheapest quality suppliers was made clear across the website.

2. Text Marketer explained that they owned and maintained the CompareBulkSMSPrices site, and pointed out that the Terms of Use page of the website stated that it was maintained by Text Marketer. They believed it was therefore clear that the website was not independent. Text Marketer said they did not take commission from any of the companies listed on the website, and that links were provided to all the companies listed so that consumers could make their own comparisons.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the CompareBulkSMSPrices site claimed "our mission is to stay up to date with the cheapest and best deals ... low prices are not the only consideration". However, we considered that that claim, along with the "Site Established" column, would be understood by consumers to mean that a sites ranking in the price comparison chart had been determined by quality of service and age of the company, as well as price, rather than to mean that some companies had been excluded from the comparison table on those grounds. We considered that, in the absence of any information about how many or which companies had been compared, consumers would understand the price comparison table to include all bulk SMS providers, and consequently that Text Marketers offered the lowest bulk SMS prices overall. Because we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the website was misleading.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Prices).

2. Upheld

We noted that the "Terms of Use" stated that the CompareBulkSMSPrices site was maintained by Text Marketer. However, we also noted that that information was located away from the main price comparison part of the site, and considered that it could be missed by consumers, who might be under the impression that CompareBulkSMSPrices was an independent price comparison site. We considered that information regarding Text Marketers ownership and maintenance of the website should therefore have been included on the main price comparison page, in order to make clear to consumers the nature of the relationship between Text Marketer and CompareBulkSMSPrices. Because it was not we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1 and 2.3 (Recognition of marketing communications) and 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

Action

The website must not appear again in its current form. We told Text Marketer to make sure that information about how many or which companies were included in the comparison chart, as well as the nature of the relationship between themselves and CompareBulkSMSPrices, was included on the price comparison section of the website.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)