ASA Adjudication on T-Mobile (UK) Ltd

Ad

A press ad, a brochure and two TV ads for mobile call packages:

a. The press ad claimed "You won't find more minutes for £30. Guaranteed"; next to it further text stated "We've already searched the other four networks". Small print at the top of the ad stated "Compared to SIM only or 18 month plans for new customers, excluding promotions".

b. The brochure also stated "You won't find more minutes for £30. Guaranteed".

c. The first TV ad showed a séance. The voice of a man was channelled through the woman holding the séance; the voice stated “Forget it. I can’t find more minutes for £30 here”. A voice-over stated “See if you can find more mobile minutes for £30". On-screen text stated "Compared to SIM only or 12, 18 month plans from the other 4 networks for new customers, excluding promotions. Inclusive UK calls only".

d. The second TV ad showed people on an archaeological dig finding various precious ancient artefacts but disposing of them as the voiceover stated "See if you can find more minutes for £30 …". On screen text stated "Compared to SIM only or 12, 18 month plans from the other 4 networks for new customers, excluding promotions. Inclusive UK calls only".

Issue

Hutchison 3G (3) objected that:

1. the press ad and brochure were misleading, because they believed their most comparable tariff was Mix & Match 1100, which offered up to 1100 voice minutes for £27 and

2. the TV ads were misleading for the same reason.

CAP Code

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. & 2. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd (T-Mobile) said the campaign was based on their Solo and Combi price plans. They said, before planning the campaign they had undertaken a rigorous study of the inclusive minutes offered in £30 plans by the other mobile networks and were satisfied that their Solo and Combi plans offered the most.

T-Mobile argued that 3s Mix & Match 1100 plan was not comparable to their Combi 30 plan because the Combi 30 offered a fixed number of minutes and texts whereas Mix & Match 1100 offered a variable allowance. They maintained that, even if the ASA considered that the packages were comparable, Mix & Match 1100 did not offer more minutes than Combi 30 because Combi 30 had an allowance of 400 texts and 700 minutes and, if the 400 texts were factored in to Mix & Match 1100, that would leave 700 minutes a month, the same as Combi 30. They believed, therefore, that the claim "You wont find more minutes for £30" was not misleading.  

T-Mobile said the claim in their press ad and brochure related to the fixed number of minutes included in their Combi 30 plan for £30 a month. They pointed out that Mix & Match 1100 offered a variable allowance of 1100 credits; one credit for one minute of calls or one credit for one text message. They believed a customer was unlikely to use all 1100 credits on one or other of the services, but would instead use variable amounts of both each month. They argued that their Combi 30 plan was therefore completely different from Mix & Match 1100 because 3 could not guarantee that their customers would always get more than 700 minutes each month. They believed the plans were designed to meet different needs and intended for different purposes; they believed 3s plan met the needs of customers who wanted to have more freedom with their plan than the certainty offered by Combi 30. They argued that a customer would not therefore choose between the two plans when considering their options.

T-Mobile believed the plans should be compared on a like for like basis and that, in order to compare them fairly, the 400 text messages offered in the Combi 30 plan should be taken into account in Mix & Match 1100; both plans would then offer 700 minutes.

2. T-Mobile said the TV ad was intended to intrigue viewers into finding out more about their plans by posing the question "See if you can find more minutes for £30". They asserted that that was a playful challenge to viewers to see what the other mobile networks offered, rather than an absolute claim that no network offered more minutes.

Clearcast said, when clearing the script for the ad, they had specifically asked that the proposed claim of you wont find more minutes for £30 be changed to see if you can find more minutes for £30 because they believed, although T-Mobile had checked against comparable plans, there was the possibility with the ever-changing market that the viewer could get a better deal elsewhere. They believed the claim See if you can find ..." did not suggest they offered the most minutes, but that customers may possibly find a plan with more minutes.

Clearcast said they also asked T-Mobile to make clear in onscreen text the detailed conditions of their comparison to make the basis of the comparison as clear as possible. They said T-Mobile had provided good substantiation to them that the current other plans at £30 offered by the other networks were not comparable to T-Mobiles plans.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted T-Mobiles arguments. We considered, however, that because the claim on the front of the brochure ad did not include qualification, and the only qualification in the press ad stated "Compared to SIM only or 18 month plans for new customers, excluding promotions", readers were likely to understand the claim "You won't find more minutes for £30.  Guaranteed" as an absolute claim that, out of all SIM only or 18-month plans for new customers, customers would not be able to get more minutes than they could with T-Mobile. We noted Mix & Match was an 18 month plan and considered that readers would expect it to be included in the comparison. We noted T-Mobile believed the two plans should not be compared, but we considered that customers were likely to take into account all available mobile plans when making a purchase decision; we considered they were unlikely to view the fixed nature of T-Mobiles service and the variable nature of 3s service as a major difference in the context of a claim about the number of minutes available for £30. We considered that the services met the same needs in that they both offered call and texting services for the consumer for a similar price.

We also noted T-Mobiles comments that, if the 400 texts included in their plan were taken into account in Mix & Match, both plans would offer the same number of minutes. We considered, however, that because the claim referred to minutes only, readers would understand it to mean that it was not possible to get more minutes than T-Mobiles service, regardless of the number of texts a plan offered. Because we understood that it was possible to get a maximum of 1100 minutes on 3s Mix & Match service, and because that was more minutes than T-Mobiles plan offered, we concluded that the ad was misleading.  

On this point, ads (a) and (b)  breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons).

2. Not upheld

We noted the TV ads stated "See if you can find more minutes for £30", rather than "You wont find more minutes for £30", and they did not state "Guaranteed". We considered that viewers were therefore likely to understand from the TV ads that T-Mobile were challenging viewers to see if they could find more minutes with another provider for £30; we considered that viewers were unlikely to interpret the claim as a definitive claim that customers would not be able to get more minutes than they could with T-Mobile. We concluded that the TV ads were, therefore, unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated ads (c) and (d) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find them in breach.  

Action

The press ad and brochure must not appear again in their current form. We told T-Mobile to ensure they included all available plans in future comparisons.

No further action necessary for the TV ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)