ASA Adjudication on British Sky Broadcasting Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for Sky, stated "Unbeatable broadband for Sky TV customers ... Unbelievable savings Add our free evening and weekend calls to UK* landlines package and you could save up to £200 a year compared to BT and Virgin Media^." The claim linked to a footnote that stated “^Savings claims calculated over a 12 month period and apply to standard prices for existing Sky TV customers taking Sky Broadband Max (£10 a month) and Sky Talk Freetime (£0 a month) compared to: ... Virgin Media Size XL Broadband (£20 a month) and Size L phone (£3.45 a month). Virgin Media XL Broadband includes PC Guard Total, up to 15 email addresses & other free extras. Virgin Media offers may apply. See virginmedia.com for details. Savings claims assume Sky customers have an active BT compatible line ...”. Text at the bottom of the ad stated “Sky TV customers visit sky.com/broadband or call 08442 ...”. Further text below stated “Interested in joining Sky? Go online or call now...”.

Issue

Virgin Media challenged whether the claim "... you could save up to £200 a year compared to ... Virgin Media" was misleading and could be substantiated.  They considered the comparison was unfair as Sky had not included the costs of subscribing to Sky TV in the savings calculations.  Virgin added that, even if these costs were excluded, the maximum saving against Virgin Media was £161 and not up to £200 as claimed.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Sky said the purpose of the ad was to acquire broadband customers and there was a secondary selling message of a telephone package; the purpose was not to acquire Sky TV customers.  They believed the layout and text in the ad made that clear.  Sky argued that the generic reference "Interested in joining Sky?" was much less prominent than the headline claim "Unbeatable broadband for Sky TV customers" and also less prominent and direct than the call to action for existing Sky TV customers: "Sky TV customers visit ...".  

Sky pointed out that the savings claim was linked to a footnote that stated "Savings claims calculated over a 12 month period and apply to standard prices for existing Sky TV customers ...".  They believed this brought to readers attention that the savings claim applied only to existing Sky TV customers.  

In any event, Sky disagreed with Virgin's assertion that the saving was only £161 if the cost of Sky TV was excluded.  They submitted a print out from Virgin's website, from the time the ad was published, to demonstrate what a customer would pay if they subscribed to XL Broadband and L Phone with Virgin Media, which were the most equivalent products to Sky's Max Broadband and Talk Freetime products.  Sky pointed out that, to take a calls package from Virgin, the customer would also need to take a Virgin telephone line costing £11 per month (line rental from Sky was £10) and pay a one-off installation fee of £30.  They submitted a tabular comparison showing the cost to Sky and Virgin customers for monthly broadband, the price of the calls package, line rental and any installation costs that applied.  The table showed the Virgin total as £443.40 against a total of £240 for Sky, a saving of £203.40.  Sky said the cost for line rental and Virgin Media's set-up costs were ordinarily included in the footnote in ads of this type but had been mistakenly omitted on this occasion, which had contributed to Virgins understanding that the maximum saving could only ever have been £161.

Sky said they had no plans to use the ad again.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the headline stated "Unbeatable broadband for Sky TV customers" and the savings claim was linked to a footnote that made clear that it referred to savings that an existing Sky TV customer could make if they subscribed to the advertised Sky broadband package: "^Savings claims ... apply to standard prices for existing Sky TV customers ...".  We also noted smaller text at the bottom of the page was clearly addressed to Sky TV customers and stated "Sky TV customers visit ...".  While smaller text, immediately below, stated "Interested in joining Sky?", we considered that most readers would regard that as a secondary message and would understand that the ad targeted existing Sky TV subscribers.

We noted Sky had failed to include in the ad both the cost of line rental and Virgin's one-off installation cost.  We understood that those details had been omitted in error and reminded Sky to ensure that they were included in future.  We nevertheless noted the comparative table submitted by Sky showed a saving of £203.40, for existing Sky TV customers, against Virgin's most comparable products and concluded that the claim "... you could save up to £200 a year ... compared to Virgin Media" was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)