ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Wanadoo UK plc

Complaint

A TV ad for Wanadoo (TV ad A) began with an animated scene of a woman working on a laptop sitting on a sofa between a young boy holding a CD and a teenage girl holding a telephone handset. The girl said "Mum, Tom might call. Duh. Important!". The boy replied "So homework's not important?" and the two began shoving each other across their mother. The Wanadoo website address and phone number appeared onscreen along with text that said "New broadband customers only. After 6 months broadband £17.99 Wireless & Talk extra £4. BT line and rental payable 12 month contract. Subject to availability. Fastest line speeds up to 8 Meg." As the struggle continued a man entered the room looking bemused. A voice-over said "Wanadoo it all at once?". The next shot showed a cross-section of the family's house with the boy playing on a computer with the words "Up to 8 Meg" on the screen, the girl speaking on the phone next to a sign saying "Free Chat" and the woman in the back garden working on the laptop. A voice-over said "You want up to 8 Meg broadband with free off-peak calls and free wireless connection. Family size broadband from Wanadoo." On-screen text said "Calls to 01/02 numbers only. Wireless & Talk required. Usage limits and terms apply." The man was seen sitting in an armchair saying "It's great when everyone gets on". The final screen said "All for £14.99 a month for the first six months. Wanadoo. 0800 ... wanadoo.co.uk".

A second TV ad (TV ad B) was identical with the exception of the final screen which said "Up to 8 Meg family sized Broadband. Wanadoo. Wanadoo.co.uk".

A national press ad featured the boy sitting at a PC with the words "Up to 8 Meg" on the screen. The headline read "Wanadoo it all for £14.99" with text underneath that said "Superfast downloads now with up to 8 Meg broadband, Free off-peak call to UK Landline, Free wireless connection anywhere at home. Only £14.99 a month for the first six months". Small print at the bottom said "New broadband customers only, 12 month contract. After 6 months broadband £17.99, Wireless & Talk an extra £4. BT line and rental payable. Fastest line speed up to 8 Meg subject to availability, compatibility and survey. Wireless & Talk required for calls and wireless connection. Calls to 01/02 numbers only. Call restrictions, usage limits and other terms apply. See wanadoo.co.uk/terms"

All the ads first appeared in mid-October.

1. Competitors of Wanadoo and members of the public objected to the ads because they felt that the "up to 8 Meg" broadband was not available to the majority of people.

BT, Tiscali and WCRS advertising agency on behalf of Bulldog Broadband all felt that the TV and press advertising was misleading because it appeared nationwide and implied that "up to 8 Meg" broadband would be available to the majority of viewers. They felt that the product was being advertised on the basis that Wanadoo was enabling lines in a small number of sites around the UK which would allow users to get "up to 8 Meg" broadband; they felt that when the advertising first appeared this service was available to only a small proportion of the population.

Two members of the public objected to the press ad because "up to 8 Meg" broadband was not available in their localities.

Two other members of the public, one objecting to the TV ads and the other to the press ad, said that they made enquiries about "up to 8 Meg" broadband but were told that it would not be available to them for a number of months and that the fastest they could get from Wanadoo at the time of enquiry was 2 Meg.

2. WCRS said that the TV ads did not include an indication of whether "up to 8 Meg" referred to either uploading or downloading speeds. They said that previous ASA adjudications and CAP advice had made this a requirement for broadband ads.

3. A member of the public said that the text in the TV ads was not large enough to be clearly legible.

4. The ASA challenged whether TV ad A made it clear that the Wireless and Talk option was only free of charge for six months and that it cost £4 per month after this initial period.

5. We also challenged whether TV ad B made it clear that the Wireless and Talk option was only free of charge for six months and that it cost £4 per month after this initial period.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Adjudication

1. Complaints upheld

Wanadoo said that they were rolling out 8 Meg broadband throughout the country from October 2005. They said that the first stage of this was the unbundling of 154 local exchanges that would cover 11.5% of the population. During the final testing phase in October they discovered a design issue that meant that not all of these 154 sites could go 'live' together and, as of late November, 113 sites, covering 8.5% of the population were 'live'. They said that a DTI report had estimated that 55% of people would be able to get a download speed of 8 megabits once their lines had been enabled. They said anyone who could not get 8 Meg would be offered a 2 Meg connection. They said that they had included the words "subject to availability" and "up to" in the ad to ensure that viewers were aware that a number of variable factors (such as the distance from the exchange or local unavailability of the service) meant that the fastest speeds would not be achievable for everyone.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said that they had cleared the "up to 8 Meg" claim on the basis of substantiation provided by Wanadoo that showed that the phased roll out of "up to 8 Meg" broadband was beginning in October 2005, covering 11.5% of the population and 100% coverage would be achieved by summer 2006.

We noted that, at the time that the TV ads were first broadcast and the press ads were first published in national newspapers, only 113 of the local exchanges were unbundled. These covered 8.5% of the population. According to Wanadoo, 8 Meg broadband is achievable for 55% of people with live connections. Assuming that 55% of people served by the 113 exchanges could achieve it, when the ads first appeared a maximum of 4.675% of the population could have got 8 Meg broadband from Wanadoo. We noted that the ads had included the words "up to" in reference to the 8 Meg claim and that the on-screen text in the TV ads included "subject to availability". We considered that all ads for broadband should include "up to" as, for a number of reasons, maximum line speeds are not universally available. In this case, however, we did not consider that either the "up to" or the on-screen text was an adequate indication that the service was available to such a limited number of people at the time that it was first advertised or that it would not be available to a large number of people for some time.

2. Complaint upheld

The BACC said that it was their policy that all ads for broadband services that featured speed claims should include an indication of whether this referred to uploading or downloading speed. They said that in the case of the Wanadoo ads they had overlooked this; they apologised for the oversight.

Wanadoo said that their understanding was that, as the ads did not include any reference to uploading or downloading, it was not necessary for them to include an indication of the function to which the speed claim referred.

We noted that Wanadoo felt that the ad did not require an indication of what the speed claim referred to as neither uploading nor downloading was mentioned in the ad. Following previous adjudications and in line with advice issued by CAP, however, it is necessary for any ad that features a broadband speed claim to include an indication of whether the claim refers to uploading or downloading. As the Wanadoo TV ads did not include such an indication we considered them to be misleading.

3. Complaint not upheld

The BACC said that the on-screen text in the TV ads had been checked both before broadcast and after they were informed of the complaint and on both occasions it was found to be in excess of the minimum required size and duration on screen.

We were satisfied that the size and duration of the on-screen text complied with the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code.

4. Upheld

Wanadoo said that the Wireless and Talk service was separate from the offered broadband package. They said that the final shot in ad A made it clear that the offer was only for the first six months and that the on-screen text alerted viewers that there would be a separate charge of £4 a month after this period. They said that, unlike the broadband service, there was no contract for the Wireless and Talk service and customers could cancel it at any time.

We noted that the end shot in TV ad A indicated that the offered package of "up to 8 Meg" broadband and the Wireless and Talk service was available for £14.99 for six months and that the on-screen text gave details of the prices of the two components after this period. Even with the on-screen text, however, we did not consider that the ad made it sufficiently clear that the Wireless and Talk service was separate from the broadband and that it was free for the first six months only. We considered the ad to be misleading for this reason.

5. Upheld

Wanadoo again said that the Wireless and Talk service was separate from the offered broadband package. They said that the on-screen text alerted viewers that there would be a separate charge of £4 a month after this period. They said that, unlike for the broadband service, there was no contract for the Wireless and Talk service and customers could cancel it at any time.

We considered that the only indication in TV ad B that the Wireless and Talk service was free for only the first six months was in the on-screen text. We considered that viewers should have been made aware of the length of time for which the Wireless and Talk service would be free and that it was a separate service to the broadband. We did not consider the on-screen text on its own to be a prominent enough indicator of the six-month period or that the ad made the limitations of the offer clear. We considered the ad to be misleading for this reason.

The TV ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.3 (Qualifications). They must not be shown again in their present forms. They were also investigated under rule 5.4.2 (Superimposed text) but were not found in breach.

The press ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), and 7.1 (Truthfulness).