ASA Adjudication on British Sky Broadcasting Ltd

Ad

A national press ad for Sky was headlined "Still digging for the truth on cable broadband?". Text underneath was in three sections "Speed", "Value", and "Support". Underneath the headline "Speed" it stated "When over 350,000 people tested their lines on thinkbroadband.com, the results showed that Sky's broadband customers got on average faster download speeds than Virgin Media's." Under the "Value" heading the text read "The £10 per month that Virgin Media charge for download speeds of up to 2Mb, almost doubles to £18 after 12 months. Sky TV customers can get download speeds of up to 2Mb for free*. And they can get even faster broadband with download speeds of up to 8Mb for only £5 a month." The disclaimer stated "Broadband subject to availability and activation fee of £40 for up to 2Mb; £20 for up to 8Mb."

Issue

Virgin Media Ltd and two members of the public challenged whether:

The claim "When over 350,000 people tested their lines on thinkbroadband.com, the results showed that Sky's broadband customers got on average faster download speeds than Virgin Media's" was misleading, because:

1. the tests referred to were carried out between October 2006 and January 2007 and were therefore out of date when the ad was published in July 2007.

2. it did not make clear that Sky had faster average download speeds because Sky broadband customers who took part in the test would have purchased broadband with higher speeds than Virgin customers.

Virgin Media and one member of the public challenged whether:

3. the price comparison was misleading, because it compared Sky's price for broadband as part of a bundle with Virgin Media's price for stand alone broadband.

Virgin Media challenged whether:

4. the pricing information for Sky broadband was misleading, because it did not make clear that consumers would also have to pay for BT line rental at £10.50 per month.

CAP Code

Response

1. Sky said they did not consider the thinkbroadband.com tests were out of date. They said that dates of the tests and the circumstances in which they were taken were clearly stated as a footnote and could not mislead consumers.

2. Sky said the speed test results did not detail which broadband services or connection speed users of the thinkbroadband.com speed test were subscribed to. They said the allegation that Sky had faster average download speeds, because its customers purchased broadband with higher speeds than Virgin customers, was entirely without substantiation or evidence. Sky considered that the thinkbroadband.com footnote 'average speeds depended on a number of factors' was sufficient to alert readers that there were a number of factors to take into consideration when assessing broadband speeds.

3. Sky said they did not consider the price comparison misleading because the ad was specifically targeted at existing Sky TV customers with a broadband acquisition message. They believed the comparison was based on existing Sky TV customers taking a separate broadband product. Sky said they had included a footnote that read "Virgin Media 2 for £25 broadband and TV also available" to ensure that non Sky TV consumers were provided with all the information to make an informed and accurate assessment.

4. Sky said the purpose of the "Value" paragraph was to show the reader that Virgin Media's broadband price increased in the second year. They said the footnote reference "compatible line required" could have been made clearer in the ad and that they had qualified that requirement more precisely in other advertisements.  

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA considered that, in the absence of more recent data, and because the source was referenced in the ad, the thinkbroadband.com test results were not out of date at the time of publication. However, we noted that the thinkbroadband.com website stated that the test did not reflect the performance of specific services available to customers and, as such, a broadband provider with more customers on low speed services would have a lower average than those offering more high speed services, irrespective of the quality of service, or speed-to-price ratio. The website made clear that the speed test was not a league table of broadband providers and should not be referenced as such. The ASA was concerned that Sky had used the thinkbroadband.com test data to compare speed performance with Virgin Media, even though the data made clear that it should not be used for that purpose. We concluded that the ad was misleading because it implied that Sky's service was, on average, faster than Virgin Media's service for all levels of broadband.

On these points the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1 and 18.2 (Comparisons with identified competitors and / or their products).

3. Upheld

We noted that the headline claim "Still digging for the truth on cable broadband?" appeared in a national newspaper and was addressed to anyone "thinking of getting broadband (or changing your supplier)". We therefore did not agree with Sky that it targeted existing Sky customers only. We considered that the price comparison, featured in the ad, between Virgin Media's £10 per month broadband service and Sky's free 2Mb service was misleading because Virgin Media's '2 for £25' broadband and TV package was a more comparable offer to the free 2Mb service available to Sky TV customers.

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

4. Upheld

We noted that Sky had acknowledged the footnote "compatible line required" could have been made clearer in the advert. We concluded that, because the necessary additional cost of a landline was not stated, the ad was misleading.

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

Action

We told Sky not to repeat the ad and advised them to seek help for the amendments from the CAP Copy Advice team.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)