Internet and Telephone packages – time for some straight talking
In the not too distant past there was a time when technology in the home was relatively straightforward and uncomplicated. For instance, telephones were for making telephone calls and computers for playing space invaders or word processing. But technological developments in recent years have seen the humble phone and home computer evolve into more powerful, faster and multifunctional tools than could ever have been imagined.
It is these leaps and bounds in technology that have blurred the lines between telephones and computers. The dawn of the Internet saw phone lines being connected to computers which in turn has led to the subsequent broadband revolution that we see happening today.
As a result, broadband and phone packages have proliferated. With many companies now providing the two services together the market has never been more competitive and consumer choice has never been greater. It is this fierce battle for customers that has seen advertisers making increasingly attractive low cost offers and claims about connection speeds and line rentals. Unfortunately, in the rush to lure customers to a particular brand, advertisements have sometimes made claims that have turned out to be misleading. Consumers, concerned that offers may not be as good as they first seemed, have contacted the Advertising Standards Authority to register their complaints.
So, where have advertisers gone wrong and what should consumers look out for when judging whether an offer is the real deal or merely cleverly packaged?
Talk is cheap?
One of the most frequently used words being thrown around by advertisers in the broadband and telephone market at the moment is ‘free’. It’s many people’s favourite word. But buyers beware. Although advertisers are allowed to call something free there are strict advertising rules surrounding the use of the word and advertisers do not always get it right.
Recently the ASA formally investigated and upheld 145 complaints from members of the public and industry competitors about Carphone Warehouse’s multi-media ad campaign for its TalkTalk telephone package that offered “free broadband forever”. But, if advertisers are allowed to use the word “free”, how, in this instance did Carphone Warehouse mislead consumers?
Those who contacted the ASA objected that the offer was misleading because it suggested that the broadband was free when it involved a contractual commitment to a calls package. They also thought the claim that broadband was “free forever” couldn’t be substantiated. Lastly, they did not think it was sufficiently clear that the availability of broadband was dependent on being connected to a qualifying telephone exchange and for those that weren’t it would cost a further £10 per month for the broadband service.
The ASA upheld the complaints on all three points. It considered that the broadband was a constituent part of the package and only available as an option to people who paid a connection charge to sign up and who continued to pay a monthly charge. Because the ASA did not consider that broadband could be described as free it also considered describing it as “free forever” to be misleading. The ASA also found that even if TalkTalk could call their broadband free they could not substantiate the “forever” claim. Because people who had signed up to the offer would continue to pay £20.99 a month it meant that broadband would become “inclusive” after a reasonable period of time rather than “free”.
Lastly on the issue of availability, the ASA ruled that TalkTalk had not made sufficiently clear to consumers that the broadband service was only available without an extra charge to homes that were connected to a TalkTalk exchange. Those that were not would have to pay an extra £10 per month for the broadband service.
As a result of the ASA ruling TalkTalk were told that their ads must not be broadcast or published again in their current form.
More haste less speed
In an increasingly frantic and busy modern world where everyone wants things done yesterday speed has become the order of the day. Advertisers of broadband have been quick to promote this aspect of their service. Recently, Bulldog Communications ran into trouble with the ASA on this issue with claims about the speed of their broadband.
A TV ad and a national press ad promoting Bulldog’s broadband and phone package both claimed “Up to 8 meg broadband”. In this instance “Meg” stands for megabits and the speed it is delivered in is measured in megabits per second or Mbps. So 8 meg broadband is a service that enables speeds of 8 megabits per second. A competitor and members of the public objected that the ads were misleading because the broadband speed quoted was not achievable or available for a significant number of people within the geographic areas where the service was available.
The investigation into these complaints raised some interesting questions about how the advertising codes are interpreted and applied by the ASA. Bulldog argued that their “up to” claim was in line with previous guidance and rulings by the ASA and clearly indicated that the top speed might not be achieved by all users. The ASA acknowledged this point but considered that “up to” was an adequate qualification in ads for 1 Mbps and 2 Mbps services – where the attainable speeds were close enough to those advertised so as not to affect the customers’ experience in any meaningful way.
What became apparent, however, is that higher speed services, such as the “up to 8 meg” promoted in this particular ad, are not attainable for all customers due to restrictions in technology. The broadband speed that people can achieve is dependent on how close they are to a local exchange. The further away they are from an exchange the slower the broadband speed will be. Beyond 3km the achievable speed drops rapidly because the signal is weakened by line length and quality. Because a significant proportion of Bulldog customers could not achieve speeds close to the headline “8 meg” the ASA considered that “up to” was not an adequate qualifier in ads for higher speed services.
The ASA upheld the complaints against Bulldog and told them to indicate prominently in future ads that top speeds varied significantly, in particular because of a user’s distance from their local exchange. This also served as an agenda setting ruling for the sector as a whole and all advertisers wanting to make this kind of claim in the future will have to take note of the ASA’s findings.
Broadly compliant
Broadband and telephone packages, with high speed services and low cost offers, are being advertised in abundance. Consumers may feel spoilt for choice and find that in most instances the package they choose more than satisfies their user needs. However, if advertisers want to promote their services then they have to ensure they do not mislead the public with claims that are not as good as they appear to be.
The seismic shifts in technology that have enabled consumers to take advantage of and enjoy high speed Internet connections in their homes have also created a world of advertising opportunities. It is the ASA’s role to ensure that advertisers comply with the rules so that when consumers take advantage of their new broadband and telephone package they do not do is use their phone or computer to contact us and complain about advertising in this sector.
Rulings
Carphone Warehouse Ltd
Bulldog Communications Ltd
Written by Sally Ramsden