ASA Adjudication on National Westminster Bank plc
National Westminster Bank plc t/a
NatWest
135 Bishopsgate
London
EC2M 3UR
Date:
16 September 2009
Media:
Television
Sector:
Financial
Number of complaints:
16
Complaint Ref:
83095
Ad
a. A TV ad for NatWest took place in a busy bank branch and showed a montage of bank staff advising customers as part of NatWest's MoneySense service. A heading at the top of the screen stated "NatWest Liverpool 3rd December 10:07am." A male member of staff said "Basically it's just about trying to save our customers some money." Other advisers said they would go through customers' income and expenditure and were heard asking them about their household energy providers and car insurance. Voice-over at the end of the ad stated "We now have MoneySense advisers in 1,000 branches. They're not there to sell but to give you free, impartial, financial guidance." Voice-over and a heading on-screen stated "NatWest. Helpful banking."
b. A second, similar TV ad opened with the heading "NatWest Newcastle 5th January 11:28am." Different advisers said "We've got MoneySense advisers in the branch ... at this time every penny counts" and "The idea is to help customers identify areas where they could be making savings." Advisers spoke to customers about budgeting for clothes, eating out and household energy. The ad ended with the same voice-over and heading as ad (a).
c. A third, similar TV ad opened with the heading "NatWest Croydon Saturday 09:14am." An adviser addressed a group of colleagues, saying "Today our focus is going to be on saving our customers money." Different advisers spoke to customers about budgeting. The ad ended with the same voice-over and heading as ads (a) and (b).
Issue
16 viewers, including Independent Financial Advisers, Which? and cherryfind, a body funded by impartial advisers to help and protect consumers, complained direct to the ASA to challenge whether the claim "They're not there to sell but to give you free, impartial financial guidance" in all three ads was misleading because they believed the advisers would direct customers to NatWest products.
BCAP TV Code
Response
NatWest said MoneySense was designed to help both customers and non-customers better understand and manage their finances. They said they had completed qualitative research on how MoneySense had been received by customers. They said none of their respondents reported experiencing a "pushy" MoneySense Adviser or having any bank specific products promoted during the interview. The respondents said it was generally made clear that the Adviser could not promote or sell to them during the interview. NatWest said the content of the booklets that accompanied MoneySense had been approved by an independent charity, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service (CCCS). They said each MoneySense Adviser (MSA) was an experienced Customer Service Officer (CSO) who had completed training to help customers complete a budget planner to understand their expenditure and make the most of their income. They said they were not permitted to sell or promote NatWest products during a MoneySense discussion and there was no financial or target incentive attached. They said the MSA training was designed to ensure the guidance they provided was impartial and that dialogue explaining the MSA role and the scope of what could be discussed during the session was provided. NatWest sent a sheet of mandatory dialogue that was used in a MoneySense review and a summary of the key stages that took place. They said NatWest products could be discussed only at the request of the customer and only once the MoneySense review had been completed or terminated. They said that, if the customer requested information about NatWest products, they would be referred to another member of staff or the MSA would revert to their CSO role. They said MSAs were subject to regular observation by their branch manager to ensure high standards and impartiality were maintained.
Clearcast said NatWest had worked with them to support the claim that their MoneySense advisers were impartial. Clearcast were satisfied that the MoneySense advisers were impartial and would pass on customers to other bank staff if they wished to open an account, etc.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted that the MoneySense in-branch service was designed to improve and increase general awareness of financial matters among adults; that the ads described MoneySense advisers as "... not there to sell but to give you free, impartial, financial guidance" and the procedures and safeguards that had been built into the scheme to make its scope and purpose clear and to ensure that the service operated separately and would be understood as being separate from the sale of NatWest's own financial products. We noted that the complainants expected NatWest to offer a service that was not tied to a particular provider's products and that they were concerned when, after the MoneySense review had been completed, many customers were offered NatWest's own products only in a formal financial advice discussion. We considered the claim in the ad "They're not there to sell but to give you free, impartial, financial guidance" might be misleading if it was not highlighted to the customer that a MoneySense review had been completed before an adviser moved on to advising on NatWest's own financial products. We noted, however, that none of the members of the public who had complained to the ASA had reported that happening and that the examples of impartial financial guidance given in the ad related to day-to-day budgeting on food and clothing, utilities and car insurance rather than investments. Provided the correct procedures were followed to ensure the MoneySense session was understood as being separate from any formal financial advice session that followed, we considered it was legitimate for NatWest to refer enquirers on to formal financial advice if they had asked for such advice during the guidance sessions. Because NatWest had shown that their MoneySense advisers were "not there to sell but to give you free, impartial financial guidance" (and nothing more, in the context of the MoneySense interview), we concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead.
We investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence) but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)