Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, of which three were Upheld and two were Not Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on www.greateranglia.co.uk, a TV ad, radio ad and circular.
a. The TV ad showed a man driving to work in heavy traffic. The driver's attention focused on a billboard which stated "Does your commute compute? Car 56p per mile Train 21p per mile". The accompanying on-screen text stated "Train costs based on Greater Anglia mthly/longer ave Std season ticket prices 01/12". The driver then found himself stuck behind a bus. An ad on the back of the bus repeated the claims on the billboard. On-screen text stated "Car costs based on 1800cc petrol car, 12,000 miles pa (source: Emmerson Hill 03/11)". The driver then switched on the radio and an announcer asked "Does your commute compute? How much could you save a year if you went to work by train?" The driver was then shown to look at his phone which featured text that stated "saving you £4200 per year". The footnote then stated "See greateranglia.co.uk for verification".
b. The radio ad featured a voice-over which stated "Does your commute compute? 56p per mile by car 21p by train." The ad then said that on a journey of 12,000 miles per year commuters could save £4,200. The voice-over then stated "See how much you could save a year at greateranglia.co.uk". A further voice-over stated "See web for comparison details. Estimated costs based on 1800cc petrol car and average monthly or longer standard season ticket prices."
c. Text on www.greateranglia.co.uk stated "If you are travelling 1000 miles per year it costs ... By Car (56p / mile): £560 per year By Train (21p / mile): £210 per year saving you £350 per year Calculate again". Further text stated "Does your commute compute? See how much you could save a year if you went to work by train". The ad then provided an explanation of how the price per mile had been calculated for travel by car and train.
d. The circular stated "Does your commute compute? CAR 56p PER MILE TRAIN 21p PER MILE". Further text stated "The train can be less than half the cost per mile of a petrol car. Multiply that by your annual mileage and see how much you could save a year. For instance, on 12,000 miles a year: Car at 56p per mile £6720 Train at 21p per mile £2520 Save £4200".
Issue
Seven complainants challenged whether the comparison presented in the ads was misleading and unfair because:
1. it was based on an annual figure of 12,000 miles which did not represent a typical distance for commuting;
2. it did not include the cost of travel to the station, either by car or public transport, nor did it include the cost to park at the stations;
3. it was based on the cost of a new car, whereas the complainants believed the majority of commuters would have a used car on a finance package;
4. it included fixed costs, such as car breakdown cover, insurance, road fund license and depreciation, that car owners would need to pay regardless of whether they commuted; and
5. the cost of items such as car breakdown cover, insurance, servicing and maintenance, tyres and replacement parts and depreciation were exaggerated.
Response
Greater Anglia believed they had used fair and reasonable statistics within the ads and said they intended the campaign to invite consumers to make their own comparisons with regards to their daily commute.
1. Greater Anglia said it was not their intention to suggest that the train would replace the use of a car completely and pointed out that the TV ad showed a second car being used by the main character's wife. They also said the ads focused on the savings consumers would make if they used a car solely for commuting to work. They said the annual mileage figure of 12,000 miles was from research and analysis carried out by a third party. The third party explained that the figure was obtained from retailer statistics and guide books in respect of the average mileage recorded for used cars that were sold at three years old. They explained that the evidence included the total mileage covered by those cars and was not restricted to the mileage covered during commuting.
Greater Anglia said they provided services for commuters throughout East Anglia and believed that 12,000 miles represented a distance that was typical for commuting from just beyond the green belt to and from London. They provided the ASA with data which showed the estimated mileage of typical rail commutes and said that the journeys included were typical of those that could be made by car.
2. They said the ads were intended to promote the cost benefit of using the train to travel to work. They said they included a generic comparison that applied to the whole audience and believed it was not possible to provide accurate information for every consumer when comparing the cost of travel to, or parking at, a railway station.
3. They said the example used was of a car that was three years old and the comparison was based on a car with an 1800cc engine, because it sat in the middle range of the engine sizes referred to in the research they had been provided with.
4. Greater Anglia said factors such as car breakdown cover, insurance, road fund licence and depreciation were taken into account when the cost per mile was calculated. They submitted details of estimated running costs of cars with different engine types and sizes and of their revenue per mile for standard class season tickets of a month or longer for 2012.
5. They said the cost of car breakdown cover, insurance, servicing and maintenance, tyres and replacement parts and depreciation were taken as an average figure from comprehensive research carried out by the third party.
In relation to the TV ad, Clearcast said that a comparative claim between the cost of car and rail travel would vary dependent on personal circumstances and that it was not possible to provide a comparison that was accurate for the entire travelling population. However, they believed the data upon which the comparison was based was fair and reasonable and provided a meaningful comparison.
Clearcast believed ad (a), and in particular the on-screen text, made clear that consumers who purchased monthly, or longer, average standard season tickets, or those who drove an 1800cc petrol car and travelled 12,000 miles a year could save if they travelled by train instead of car.
In relation to the radio ad, the RACC believed that irrespective of the annual mileage selected in the comparison, it was reasonable for the ad to include a figure that was representative of the running costs associated with commuting. They said Greater Anglia had provided them with independent data, which showed an average of the costs associated with a car that covered 12,000 miles annually. They also said Greater Anglia had provided data that showed the average pence per mile cost for Greater Anglia season ticket holders. They pointed out the ad included qualifications, which made clear that the specific claims were estimates dependant on specified variables. They also said the ad included a link to the website where potential customers could obtain an estimated savings figure.
Assessment
The ASA acknowledged it was not possible to provide a precise figure of the cost per mile for individual commuters in the ads. We also noted the ads stated "Does your commute compute?" and invited consumers to make their own online comparisons with regards to their daily commute. However, we considered consumers would expect the claims in the ads to be based on figures that were representative of the typical costs associated with commuting by car and of those associated with travelling by train.
1. Upheld
We noted the ads made clear the calculation for commuting via car was based on an annual figure of 12,000 miles, which we understood was drawn from research and analysis carried out by a third party. However, we were not provided with the data that underpinned that research. We also understood the annual mileage figure was based on the total mileage covered by the cars in the research and was not restricted to the mileage covered in commuting. We considered the comparison should have been made on a like-for-like basis and that it was therefore misleading to compare the cost of commuting via train with the cost of using a car more generally. We noted Greater Anglia's comments that the journeys included in the estimated mileage of typical rail commutes were typical of those that could be made by car. However, we were concerned that that was not sufficient to demonstrate that 12,000 miles represented a typical distance for commuting by car for those covered by the Greater Anglia route and therefore concluded that the comparison was misleading.
On this point, ads (a) and (b) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons) and ads (c) and (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
2. Not upheld
We noted the ads provided the cost per mile for each mode of transport. We understood the cost of commuting via car did not include travel fees that might be additional to the journey itself, such as the cost of parking at work. In that context, and because we understood any additional travel costs were likely to vary between individuals, some of whom would have no such additional fees, we considered it was reasonable that the comparison did not include the additional travel fees that train commuters might incur, such as travel to, or parking at, the station. We therefore concluded that the fact the comparison did not include fees, such as travel to, or parking at, the station was not likely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) but did not find them in breach. We investigated ads (c) and (d) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) but did not find them in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted the complainants challenged whether the comparison was misleading because it was based on a new car. However, we understood the comparison was based on the average costs associated with a car purchased from new and driven for a period of three years. We also noted the ad made clear the engine size of the car used in the comparison and the distance upon which the calculation had been based.
We considered it was reasonable to base the comparison on the average costs associated with a car purchased from new and driven for a period of three years and therefore concluded the ad was not likely to mislead on this point.
On this point, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) but did not find them in breach. We investigated ads (c) and (d) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) but did not find them in breach.
4. & 5. Upheld
We noted commuters travelling by car would incur certain costs as a result of their commute, irrespective of whether they used their vehicle for purposes other than commuting. We also noted the ad made a comparison between the financial cost commuters would incur as a result of travelling by car and train. In that context, we considered consumers would expect the comparison to take into account the financial outlay the average commuter would incur as a result only of commuting via car or train. We were therefore concerned that the cost per mile calculation for car travel had taken into account, for example, depreciation in the value of the vehicle more generally. We were also concerned that we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the costs included in the calculations were representative of the costs the average commuter was likely to incur as a result only of commuting by car.
On that basis, we concluded the comparison was unfair and likely to mislead.
On these points, ads (a) and (b) breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) and ads (c) and (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Greater Anglia to ensure all comparisons were fair and not likely to mislead in future.
