ASA Adjudication on British Sky Broadcasting Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for British Sky Broadcasting (Sky) telecoms packages was in the style of a conversation between two men. One stated “I’ve switched my broadband and calls from BT to Sky, which could save me up to £185 a year … I only pay £5 a month and get up to 8 Meg download speeds and free weekend and evening calls to UK landlines and I save on line rental as well. I only pay a tenner a month for that. It’s cheaper than BT …”.

On-screen small print text visible throughout the first half of the ad stated “Compared with BT Option 2 & Unlimited Evening & Weekend Plan ... & line rental. Excludes promotional offers … 12 month Sky Broadband & Sky Talk contract. Existing UK Sky TV households only” and for the remainder stated “Broadband Mid £5pm with Sky Talk otherwise £10 ... Sky Talk pricing & call rates may vary. Sky TV £16.50 to £45pm. BT/Sky line rental payable. Set-up cost £30. Further terms apply”. A contact telephone number and website address were also provided throughout the ad.

Issue

BT challenged whether:

1.  the comparison was misleading because the ad failed to mention factors that were included with BTs Total Broadband Option 2 package, which they believed had significant value to consumers, and which would be lost following a 'switch';

2.  the savings claim was misleading, because it did not take into account Sky's obligatory £30 connection fee; and

3.  the use of 'free' to describe the evening and weekend calls in the offer was misleading, because they understood that those calls were an inclusive part of the Sky package.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1.  Sky acknowledged that there were features that could influence consumers' evaluation as to whether they should switch providers, but pointed out that there were limitations with TV advertising in relation to time and space, and in accordance with the requirements of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards (BCAP) Code, they had taken steps to make material information available by other means, in this case, on the homepage of the website referred to in the ad.  This included, amongst other things, reference to the fact that BT's product included 350 Wi-Fi minutes and free evening and weekend VOIP calls.  They said they were willing, in addition, to highlight the difference between the security packages offered by Sky and BT on the website.   

2.  Sky explained that the set-up costs of Sky Broadband were included in the calculation of the savings claim.  They pointed out that the charge was also referenced in on-screen text, which stated "Set-up cost £30" so that customers had absolute clarity over the cost they would pay to switch to Sky over and above their subscription charges.    

3.  Sky explained that their calls packages were notionally separable from Sky Talk Line Rental, which customers could continue to take from BT, and Sky Broadband: the subscription to a Sky Talk calls package was only conditional on a customer taking a Sky TV subscription.  They said Sky TV could be bought without Sky Talk Freetime and had a genuine stand-alone price, which remained the same with or without the 'free' calls.  They added that they had not sought to recover any of the cost of the 'free' calls by increasing the cost of Sky TV or any other service sold by Sky.  Sky explained that from 20 April 2009, subsequent to the ads broadcast, a 12-month minimum term had been introduced for Sky Talk Freetime and Sky Talk line rental customers.  They added that, regardless, Skys calls packages remained notionally separable from Sky Talk Line Rental and/or Sky Broadband.  They believed therefore the use of 'free' in this context was appropriate.

Clearcast endorsed Sky's response on all points and said it reflected their understanding of the ad's claims at the time it was approved for broadcast.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA noted the ad directed viewers to a webpage, which clarified within a section entitled "Terms and Conditions" how the ad's savings claim was calculated and specified that the BT broadband product used in the comparison was BT Vision ready and included, for example, 350 Wi-Fi minutes and free evening and weekend VOIP calls.  We understood that BT were concerned that no specific mention was made of the 'n' technology wireless router that it provided with all BT Broadband Options, which they believed was of a superior standard, in terms of value and specification, to that of Sky, and that it was significant for consumers, particularly existing BT customers, to be made aware of the differences before proposing to switch.  We considered, however, that the router technology was unlikely to be materially significant to many consumers considering a switch and furthermore noted, although this feature was mentioned under the heading "Main features" if consumers chose to learn more about any of BT's broadband options on their website, it was not stated as a primary factor in the specifications of BT broadband options.  

We also understood that BT were concerned about the absence of reference to the full security package permanently available to their customers throughout the life of their contract, whereas they understood that Sky offered only 12 months of full security after which time customers could purchase their own at a cost of approximately £50 per year at the time the ad appeared.  We noted the ad quoted an annual saving figure and considered that, because the security package Sky offered was available for only 12 months, the value of the broadband and calls package would effectively lessen after the first year.  We noted the website referred to in the ad stated that Sky Broadband products offered free McAfee Internet Security software for 12 months and also that the ad's claim was 'save up to £185' but we considered that the loss of the security package after 12 months was a significant factor likely to influence consumers' understanding of the offer, both in terms of the quality of the package and the value of the saving available to them after 12 months.  We noted the factors of BT's compared product that Sky had already included on the website referred to in the ad and considered that the permanent security package BT offered was an additional factor that should have been drawn to consumers' attention.

Because not all significant information was highlighted either in the ad or by other means, we concluded that the comparison was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3 (Misleading advertising) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising).

2.  Not upheld

We noted the ad stated in on-screen text "Set-up cost £30" and understood from the evidence submitted by Sky that the set-up fee had been included in the annual savings calculation.  We considered, therefore, that the ad did not mislead in this regard.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

3.  Not upheld

We understood that Sky's claim "FREE WEEKEND & EVENING CALLS TO UK LANDLINES" referred to calls included with Sky Talk Freetime, which was the call package included in the ad's 'broadband and calls' together savings claim.  We also understood that Sky Talk Freetime was a call package available in its own right and without a monthly subscription cost, conditional only on the simultaneous supply of a Sky TV subscription and line rental from either BT or Sky.  We also understood that previously, Sky Talk Freetime had been available without any contractual period obligation on the consumer, but that a minimum term of 12 months had been introduced on 20 April 2009.  

Although a minimum-term contract had been introduced, we noted there was still no charge to receive the package.  The cost of Sky Talk Freetime had not, therefore, been inflated to accommodate any added 'free' element and, although the introduction of a contractual period meant that the nature of the Sky Talk Freetime package materially differed from that previously available for all new customers, we considered that that did not in this case negate the 'free' claim in relation to calls within that package for which no charge was made.

We noted the ad referred to potential savings to be made from a combined calls and broadband offering and not Sky Talk Freetime in isolation.  We concluded however that because customers could exercise genuine choice about whether to accept Sky Talk Freetime and because the price of any TV or broadband option to which Sky Talk Freetime was bolted was not inflated nor their quality affected in order to accommodate it, it was acceptable for Sky to refer to Sky Talk Freetime evening and weekend calls as 'free' in the ad.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.11 (Use of the word 'free') but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)