ASA Adjudication on TNT Post UK Ltd

Ad

A magazine insert, for postal services, featured a comparison between TNT's service and that of Royal Mail. The front of the insert stated "100% Reliability 20% Savings 0% Hassle See what you're missing". The reverse stated "Discover our irresistible rates, faster service and ease of use when you make the switch to TNT Post - the UK's leading competitor to Royal Mail … See how much you could SAVE with this simple savings calculator chart." The chart displayed savings per annum achieved when using the TNT service to post a stated number of items per day. Below the chart text stated "Prices are for TNT Post's PremierSort Flex service (Based on PiP 'Letter' format 0-100g) and compared to Royal Mail 1st Class."

Issue

Royal Mail challenged whether:

1. the comparison was misleading and unfair because it compared TNT's 2 to 3 day delivery service with Royal Mail's next day service,

2. the savings claims were unfair because discounts offered by Royal Mail had not been taken into account

3. the claim "faster service" was misleading and whether it could be substantiated and

4. the claim "100% reliability" was misleading and whether it could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

TNT Post UK Ltd (TNT) said their service involved the collection, handling and sorting of business mail prior to it being handed to Royal Mail for delivery. They said the model was known in the industry as 'downstream access'. TNT said the ad was intended to attract medium and small business customers who typically sent low volumes of mail and often used Royal Mail first and second class services paid for with stamps or franking machines.

TNT also said they were disappointed that Royal Mail had chosen to complain as they felt they had explained the background to their advertising in direct correspondence with them.

1. TNT believed the comparison was transparent, specific and was neither unfair nor misleading. They said their postal services competed with several different Royal Mail services. They said the market had been opened to competition recently and many businesses were reviewing their postal requirements as a result. TNT believed customers were willing to have a slower postal service in exchange for a lower price. They said Royal Mail regarded that tendency as one of the key challenges to their business, with large numbers of customers moving from first to second class services.

TNT maintained that a comparison of their 2 to 3 day services with Royal Mail's first and second class services was valid and relevant because it enabled customers to make an informed choice. They pointed out that the fastest service they could offer small and medium size businesses was 2 to 3 days as a result of operational constraints and the constraints Royal Mail applied to 'downstream access' services. TNT believed that to prevent comparisons with Royal Mail's first and second class retail services would be an undue restriction on their ability to promote their services. They believed that the comparisons empowered customers and allowed them to benefit from a range of competing services.

TNT said several comparisons with Royal Mail could be made but because space was limited they had made the most relevant one. They pointed out that the ad stated that the price comparison was with the Royal Mail first class letter format and that there were more comparisons on the TNT website. They said the calculator on their website allowed potential customers to make precise comparisons between the Royal Mail services they used and those on offer from TNT.

2. TNT said the savings claims shown in the table were based on a comparison with Royal Mail first class and were actually in excess of the 20% quoted. They said the TNT Post PremierSort Flex service provided customers with significant savings when compared with Royal Mail first class. They had based their calculations on a company that used Royal Mail sending 250 items per day for 240 days a year at a cost of 32p per item (i.e. the price of a first class stamp). TNT pointed out that the savings claims did not take into account the further possible savings a customer would make by no longer needing a franking machine and paying for TNT's service in arrears.

3. TNT said they accepted that their service was not as fast as Royal Mail's first class service, but maintained that the comparison was a fair one between TNT Post service and Royal Mail's second class service. They said their PremierSort Flex 2 to 3 day service involved mail being handed over to the Royal Mail for delivery on the first or second morning after the day of collection. They said Royal Mail was contractually obliged to deliver 95% of the mail on the first working day after handover, i.e. the second or third working day after posting. TNT pointed out that Royal Mail second class mail aimed "to deliver ... by the third working day after posting". TNT believed that their customers had an expectation that a significant proportion of their mail would be delivered a day earlier than Royal Mail's second class service.

4. TNT said the "100% reliability" claim should be read in conjunction with "20% Savings" and "0% Hassle". They said "0% hassle" would be seen as a subjective claim and was clearly light hearted. TNT believed, in the context of its services, "100% reliability" would also be seen to some degree as a subjective claim. They said they had deliberately not used terms such as "guaranteed" to avoid misleading readers. TNT said they had intended to convey that TNT could be relied on by customers. They said they used the 100% figure to remain in keeping with the ads creative and not to specify a specific level of reliability. TNT maintained, however, that their average delivery reliability was 99.6%, which, when rounded to the nearest percent, gave a figure of 100%.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted TNT believed customers were increasingly willing to accept slower postal services in return for lower prices. We noted the disclaimer stated that prices were for TNT Post's PremierSort Flexservice and had been compared with Royal Mail's first class service. We considered, however, that many readers would be unaware that the TNT PremierSort Flexservice had a 2 to 3 day delivery period and because the ad contained claims, such as "Discover our irresistible rates, faster service ... quick delivery", readers were likely to infer that the two services had similar delivery periods. We understood, however, that the TNT PremierSort Flex Service was more comparable with Royal Mail's second class service, which had a 3-day delivery period. Because it compared the two services without stating prominently in the body copy that the delivery period of the services was different, we concluded that the comparison was unfair and was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

2. Upheld

We noted TNT's calculations were based on Royal Mail customers paying 32p for each item sent. We noted, however, TNT had not included, for example, the discount available to Royal Mail first class customers who used a franking machine or who sent 250 items or more a day. Because the comparison did not take reasonable account of the discounts available to Royal Mail customers on standard rates, we concluded that the comparison was unfair and likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

3. Upheld

We noted TNT accepted that Royal Mail's first class service was faster than the services they offered but considered that the comparison was a fair one between their service and Royal Mail's second class service. We noted the ad gave no indication that the "faster" claim was based on Royal Mail's second class post and considered that the footnote, which referred to first class post, would lead readers to believe all comparative claims were with that service. We concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

4. Upheld

We noted TNT's argument that the use of "100% Reliability" was subjective and in keeping with the idea of the creative. We considered, however, that the claim was likely to be seen by readers as an objective claim capable of substantiation, which referred to TNT's delivery success. We noted TNT had asserted that their average delivery reliability was 99.6%. We also noted, however, TNT were dependant upon Royal Mail to carry out final delivery. We considered that a strong claim, such as "100% Reliability", potentially misrepresented the uncertain nature of postal services, where, as TNT had acknowledged, a given number of packages would fail to be delivered or be delivered later. We therefore concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

On points 1, 2 and 3, we told TNT to ensure that the basis of any future comparisons was prominently stated in the body copy of the ad.

On point 4, we told TNT not to use the claim again unless they held adequate substantiation.

We also advised the advertisers to consult CAP Copy Advice.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)