Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, of which one was Not upheld and three were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad and a national press ad for Vodafone:
a. The TV ad showed fire fighters at the scene of a fire. A female voice-over stated, "People say, 'but don't you worry?' and I go 'well, no, it's just what they do. It's what they're trained to do. They're used to it and so are you'. But even after 27 years, you still want a call or a text. It's never 'I love you. I'm OK. I'm safe', it's just 'what's for dinner?'. Daft beggar." Another voice-over stated, "77% of the emergency services use Vodafone. Vodafone, power to our emergency services … " Text on screen repeated the message in the second voice-over. Smaller on-screen text stated "Source: Actual Vodafone billed revenue, compared against market data from Kable 02/2014".
b. The national press ad, which featured an image of a police officer and a dog, was headlined "Those we rely on use Vodafone". Text below stated "We are honoured 77% of the emergency services use Vodafone. Our technology enables police officers to securely access, share and send critical data on their smart phones and tablets while out on patrol. So officers can spend less time doing paperwork and more time out fighting crime. Power to our emergency services". Small print stated "Products used by individual police forces may vary. Source: Actual Vodafone billed revenue, compared against market data from Kable 02/14".
Issue
Telefonica UK Ltd challenged whether:
1. ad (a) misleadingly implied that 77% of emergency services employees used Vodafone in a personal, not professional, capacity;
2. ad (b) was misleading, for the same reason;
3. ad (a) was misleading, because they believed the basis of the claim was not clear; and
4. ad (b) was misleading, for the same reason.
Response
Vodafone Ltd stated that 77% of the emergency services in the UK used Vodafone across a range of fixed or mobile communications, unified (meaning fixed and mobile) communications or business solutions. They had worked closely with Kable, a public sector market intelligence firm, to create a clear definition of "emergency services", by reference to statutory definitions, and then identified every authority in the UK to which those definitions applied. For example, for the police they had identified a number of territorial police forces, national forces and then other bodies such as the British Transport Police and the National Crime Agency, which were all statutory bodies with the power of arrest. Then, by reference to their billing system, Vodafone identified that they billed 77% of all those authorities (including police, fire and ambulance services) for a range of services including the provision of smart phones (used by senior officers), access point links, in vehicle communication and data facilities. They acknowledged that those services varied greatly from authority to authority and emergency service to emergency service, but nevertheless those authorities 'used' Vodafone for its billable services.
Vodafone said they had been very careful not to make a claim that would in any way imply that they provided the emergency services with a specific kind of service, or that they provided services on an exclusive basis. Hence they had simply stated that 77% of emergency services used Vodafone services rather than a stronger claim, such as "77% of the emergency services rely on Vodafone" or "77% of emergency services use Vodafone for their communications".
1. & 3. Vodafone explained that by featuring real-life fire-fighters, and highlighting the personal and emotional pressure that staff endured as part of their everyday jobs, they hoped to demonstrate the strength of emergency services personnel. In addition, as 77% of the emergency services used Vodafone, by association, they hoped to communicate that their network was also strong and dependable. They also thought the on-screen text made clear the basis of the 77% claim.
Clearcast provided the substantiation they had received from the agency, which they believed showed that 77% of emergency services used Vodafone services. They thought that the ad made clear that of the emergency services in existence, Vodafone serviced 77% of them, as opposed to suggesting that 77% of those individuals working for the emergency services used Vodafone. Clearcast did not think that any additional qualification, other than the text that stated "Source: Actual Vodafone billed revenue, compared against market data from Kable 02/2014", was required in order for people to understand the basis of the claim. They also highlighted that the claim simply stated "use", which they thought was factually accurate.
2. & 4. Vodafone highlighted that the ad depicted a police officer in standard issue uniform, which included a communication device. They highlighted that the device was holstered in its pocket and was not being used by the officer, and that he was not using any other personal device. In addition, they said the body copy made clear the kind of services/technology Vodafone provided; namely smart phones and tablets. Therefore, they thought consumers would understand that the pictured device was not representative of the devices they provided to the emergency services, and that the claim related to professional, as opposed to private, usage. They also said the small print made it clear that the products used would vary by police force and made clear the basis of the 77% claim.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ad showed a fireman in the line of duty, in a potentially dangerous situation, as the female voice-over, representing the man's wife, explained how she valued a text or phone call from her partner when he was on duty to alleviate her worry. We noted the explicit reference to both a call and text, and considered viewers were likely to understand that such communications would often be sent using a personal phone, as opposed to a phone provided by an employer. We noted that the voice-over and on-screen text stated "77% of the emergency services use Vodafone. Vodafone, power to our emergency services", but did not define "emergency services" or "use". We considered that the ambiguity of the claim, and the fact the ad focused on a fireman's personal relationship, as opposed to the use of telephony in a professional capacity, could lead a number of consumers to believe that 77% of emergency service personnel had chosen Vodafone as their private mobile telephone provider. We understood, however, that the claim related to the percentage of emergency service authorities that used, and were therefore billed for, any Vodafone services, rather than to personnel who used Vodafone services for their private usage. Because we had concerns that a number of viewers might understand from the ad that 77% of emergency services personnel used Vodafone services for their private usage, whereas we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising).
2. Not upheld
We noted that the body copy stated "Our technology enables police officers to securely access, share and send critical data on their smartphones and tablets while out on patrol. So officers can spend less time doing paperwork, and more time out fighting crime". The ad also included an image of a police officer on duty, with a communication device clearly identifiable on his person, whilst the small print highlighted that the Vodafone products used by each police force varied. Whilst we understood that the device shown was not one that Vodafone supplied, we considered that the overall impression of the ad was that Vodafone served the emergency services in a professional capacity, and there was no suggestion that the claim "77% of the emergency services use Vodafone" related to personal usage. Therefore, we concluded that the claim did not misleadingly imply that 77% of emergency services employees used Vodafone in a personal capacity.
On that point, we investigated ad (b) 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), and
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
3. Upheld
We understood that the claim was intended to relate to the number of emergency services authorities, as defined by statute, that were billed by Vodafone for using any element of their service. We noted that the claim simply stated "77% of the emergency services use Vodafone", and was accompanied by on-screen text which stated "Source: Actual Vodafone billed revenue, compared against market data from Kable 02/2014". We considered that neither of those claims made clear what was meant by "emergency services", including whether the claim related to professional or personal usage, or both. In addition, as set out in point 1, we considered that, because the ad referred to calls or texts that viewers were likely to understand to be sent using a personal phone, a number of consumers could interpret the claim to relate to personal usage. We also considered that the ad did not make clear what "use" meant, and that the ambiguity could lead consumers to think Vodafone provided exclusive telephony services to 77% of the emergency services. Because we considered that the ad did not make clear the basis of the comparison, we concluded that it was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising), and
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification).
4. Upheld
As discussed in point 2 above, we considered that most consumers reading the ad would understand that the claim related to professional as opposed to private usage. We noted, however, that the ad simply referred to "emergency services", the fact they "use(d)" Vodafone and that footnote text stated "Source: Actual Vodafone billed revenue, compared against market data from Kable 02/2014". Therefore, we had concerns that consumers would not understand how Vodafone had defined "emergency services" or "use", and that a number might be misled into believing that Vodafone were the exclusive providers of telephony services to 77% of all emergency services personnel, or 77% of emergency services front-line staff, as opposed to the providers of at least one service or product to 77% of emergency service authorities. In light of that ambiguity, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point, ad (b) 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), and
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Vodafone to ensure they did not misleadingly state or imply that 77% of emergency services employees used Vodafone in a personal capacity and made the basis of their claims clearer in future.
