Background
Summary of Council decision:
Seven issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.fleet-comm.co.uk/index.htm, for a radio communications group.
On the page entitled "Network - coverage" a map of the UK featured a number of blue circles that indicated where "existing network" could be found.
On the page entitled "About Fleetcomm" text stated "Fleetcomm is a two way radio network similar to the one the police use. It is completely independent from any other network and delivers complete privacy, crystal clear audio and instant communication with all your vehicles. It does not get overloaded during busy hours and our network was the only one functioning perfectly normally during the 7/7 bombings".
On the page entitled "The Fleetcomm company" text stated "We are the largest Band III (MPT 1327) Network Provider in the United Kingdom and are currently embarked upon an ambitious, visionary, programme to re-establish a fully National radio communications network".
On the page entitled "The network", under the heading "Unbeatable coverage" text stated "The Fleetcomm Network has many transmitter sites across the country, which are all interconnected and afford a wide area coverage not available elsewhere". Under the heading "Coverage expansion", text stated "We are in the process of expanding to become fully national, and the coverage is improving every week. To see our current coverage, please visit http./www.fleet-cornm.co.uk/coverage".
On the page entitled "Our Credentials" text stated "The Fleetcomm network, employing in-house 4th generation technologies, is a hybrid digital network offering all of the latest assets and features now demanded as standard by communication users".
On the page entitled "Service Providers", under the heading "Reputable providers" text stated "Fleetcomm does not deal directly with the end user. Instead we deal through a group of established, reputable service providers".
On the page entitled "Taxi companies products" text stated "Experience proves that the taxi market benefits from the following facilities of our network: ... Longest range - longest range possible".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "the largest Band II (MPT 1327) Network Provider in the United Kingdom";
2. "it does not get overloaded during busy hours";
3. "coverage not available elsewhere";
4. "we are in the process of expanding to become fully national, and the coverage is improving every week";
5. "hybrid digital network";
6. "Fleetcomm does not deal directly with the end user"; and
7. "the longest range possible".
.
Response
Fleetcomm Mobile Networks Ltd believed that the complaint was maliciously motivated and that the complainant was a competitor and former employee. The ASA was satisfied that the complainant was not a competitor, and explained this to Fleetcomm Mobile Networks.
1. Fleetcomm Mobile Networks said the former employee they believed was responsible for the complaint had attended many meetings with Ofcom while employed at Fleetcomm Mobile Networks and was aware that the majority of Ofcom licences issued in the Band III spectrum were held by Fleetcomm Mobile Networks. They said this status had not changed since that employee left Fleetcomm Mobile Networks. We asked for evidence to prove this, for example statistics from Ofcom, and allowed Fleetcomm Mobile Networks a sufficient period of time in which to get this information from Ofcom, but we did not receive any evidence.
2. Fleetcomm Mobile Networks said their network was designed using Erlang calculations, which helped telecommunications network designers understand traffic patterns within their voice networks and establish the necessary trunk group sizes. The same former employee had been responsible for monitoring these at the time of working there. They said that even during peak hours their busiest site never exceeded more than 60% loading. We requested evidence to substantiate this, but did not receive any.
3. Fleetcomm Mobile Networks said the same former employee attended meetings with Ofcom during his period of employment at Fleetcomm Mobile Networks and was aware that the majority of Ofcom licences issued in the Band III spectrum were held by Fleetcomm Mobile Networks. They added that this had not changed since the employee had left, and said their network therefore provided a level of coverage that was not available to any other users of Band III. We again requested evidence to substantiate this assurance, but none was received.
4. Fleetcomm Mobile Networks said they were currently in detailed negotiations with a national site infrastructure organisation with a view to a symbiotic relationship that would enable expansion to 20 of the 21 cities in the UK with a population exceeding 250,000. They said they were currently in the process of concluding a contract that would necessitate the installation of an additional four sites. They offered to remove the statement "and the coverage is improving every week" and replace it with "and the coverage is being improved on a regular basis". However, we explained that even if the claim was amended in the suggested way, we would need to see evidence to support the new claim, such as how regularly improvements were made and how this improved the coverage. We did not receive further evidence to support either claim.
5. Fleetcomm Mobile Networks said the phrase "hybrid digital network" was coined by and regularly used by the previously referred to former employee when he was employed by Fleetcomm Mobile Networks. They said his argument, which they accepted, was that the network employed digital technology with the sole exception of the transmission of voice from one transmitter site to another. They acknowledged that such transmissions were analogue, but said that analogue voice had a number of distinct advantages over digital voice. They maintained that the phrase was correct, and noted that "hybrid" could be defined as anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds
6. We advised Fleetcomm Mobile Networks that the complainant believed London Radio Networks, the company who dealt with the end user, was owned by the same people as Fleetcomm Mobile Networks and had the same company address. Fleetcomm Mobile Networks said London Radio Networks was a separate company, but failed to provide any evidence to disprove the complainant's claim when asked to do so.
7. Fleetcomm Mobile Networks said they provided a level of coverage that was not available to any other users of Band III. They said the inter-site capability of the their network enabled users to obtain a much greater range than would otherwise be possible operating off their own single site network. We requested evidence to validate this assurance, but none was provided.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Fleetcomm Mobile Networks’ comment that that the majority of Ofcom licences issued in the Band III spectrum were held by Fleetcomm Mobile Networks, but in the absence of statistics or an assurance from Ofcom to prove this, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
We noted Fleetcomm Mobile Networks assurance that even during peak hours their busiest site never exceeded more than 60% loading, but as we had not seen any evidence to verify this, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
We understood that Fleetcomm Mobile Networksaccepted their former employee's assurance that the majority of Ofcom licences issued in the Band III spectrum were held by Fleetcomm Mobile Networks. However, we considered that we had given Fleetcomm Mobile Networks sufficient time to request confirmation of this from Ofcom, and as Fleetcomm Mobile Networks had failed to provide this, we concluded that this claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
4. Upheld
We understood that Fleetcomm Mobile Networks were negotiating with a national site infrastructure organisation with the aim of enabling expansion to 20 of the 21 cities in the UK with a population exceeding 250,000. However, we noted that these negotiations had not yet concluded, and as Fleetcomm Mobile Networks had not provided evidence that their coverage was being improved regularly, we concluded that the claim could not be substantiated.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
5. Upheld
We accepted Fleetcomm Mobile Networks’ definition of the word "hybrid", and considered that a network that was part digital and part analogue could reasonably be described as hybrid. However, we noted that Fleetcomm Mobile Networks had not clarified which parts of their network were digital and we had seen no evidence to confirm that the network was a mixture of digital and analogue. Furthermore, we considered that whilst the claim "hybrid digital network" directly referred to the digital aspect of the network, there was no mention of the analogue aspect. As it was unclear to refer only to one part of the network, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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) and
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).
6. Upheld
We considered Fleetcomm Mobile Networks’ assurance that London Radio Networks was a separate company. However, we noted that the contact addresses provided on the Fleetcomm Mobile Networks and London Radio Networks websites were the same except for the company names, and as Fleetcomm Mobile Networks had not provided any evidence to prove that they were separate companies, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
7. Upheld
We noted Fleetcomm Mobile Networks’ comments that their network provided a level of coverage that was not available to their competitors, but in the absence of evidence to validate this, we concluded that the claim "the longest range possible" could not be substantiated.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told Fleetcomm Mobile Networks to ensure they held adequate substantiation for their claims.
