Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and one Not upheld.

Ad description

A regional press ad and a website for Sky Broadband and Talk services:

a. The press ad, which was seen on 11 May 2015, stated "Best customer service Sky Broadband and Talk Best for combined overall customer service, compared with BT, Virgin and TalkTalk Ofcom Report, Dec 2014".

b. The 'shop' page on www.sky.com, which was seen in July 2015, stated "Best combined overall customer service For Sky Broadband and Talk, compared with BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk.** ... **Best combined overall customer service: adding together customer service satisfaction levels for broadband and landline service. Source: Ofcom Report, Dec 2014".

Issue

Virgin Media Ltd, who understood that the outcome of two separate customer service metrics had been added together, one of which demonstrated that Virgin Media had a higher score for broadband service, challenged whether the following were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. the claims relating to superior customer service, because they did not make clear the basis of the comparison, which the complainant understood to be flawed; and

2. the implication that Sky had higher customer service scores for broadband.

Response

1. Sky UK Ltd stated that Ofcom's Customer Service Report measured overall customer service satisfaction for both landline and broadband services and that the survey asked exactly the same question about customer service for both broadband and landline. Sky said that they scored 79% for overall customer satisfaction in respect of its landline services and 75% for broadband. Virgin Media had scored 72% and 76% respectively. They said that they added together the two overall results for landline and broadband, resulting in Sky's score of 154% being higher than Virgin Media's 148%. Sky said that customers would be interested in knowing the total level of customer satisfaction they could expect when responding to an ad advertising broadband and landline, particularly as standalone broadband products are relatively unusual. They stated that adding together the two results was a customer-friendly and intuitive way of providing such information. They believed that any customer would be familiar with this way of combining data, which they felt was the most basic way of doing so, and could assume it as a default method. Sky stated that the methodology used was unambiguous and they did not believe that adding together consistent measurements could mislead customers, especially as the claim was qualified.

2. Sky said that they used the word "combined" and always referred the "best" claim to the Broadband and Talk products in conjunction in order to make clear that two sets of data had been considered. They said that the qualifications further explained this point and that the claim had never been presented with reference to broadband in isolation. They therefore believed that consumers had no reason to assume that Sky had scored higher for broadband customer service in particular and, when in doubt, they could check the Ofcom report for verification.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The section of ad (a) referring to customer service, specifically stated "Sky Broadband and Talk" and the ASA considered that consumers would understand from this that the claim "Best customer service" referred to this combination of services. Similarly, the statement "Best for combined overall customer service" in ad (b) was followed by the phrase "For Sky Broadband and Talk" and we considered that the same meaning would be conveyed. We considered that the statement "Best for combined overall customer service" was ambiguous as to whether Sky had combined separate elements of customer service for a single 'broadband and landline' category (such as speed of response, satisfaction with resolution, etc.) to reach a single overall score or combined the overall customer service score from the separate 'broadband' and 'landline' categories. We noted that a qualification was included in ad (b), but considered that it did not sufficiently clarify the meaning of the headline claim because it was still unclear whether it was various satisfaction levels added together, or a single metric for each service category. As such, we considered that the nature of the comparison was not made sufficiently clear.

We understood from Sky that the claim referred to adding together a single overall measure from the separate 'landline' and 'broadband' categories in the 2014 Ofcom report. We understood that the data for landline responses had a sample size of  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  for Sky and 300 for Virgin Media, and 400 both for broadband. As these were different between the two categories, we understood that adding together the metrics was not a suitable method for determining the combined score and that the percentage metrics should have been weighted according to the size of the group. When calculated in this way, the combined metrics were not the same as the figures arrived at by Sky. We noted that the figures were similar to those reported by Sky, but understood that this was the result of chance rather than of a robust methodology for combining the metrics.

We understood that the product advertised was a broadband and landline bundle, but that a separate landline-only service was available from Sky and a broadband-only service was available from Virgin Media. We therefore understood that some respondents in the Ofcom survey would only have reported contact regarding a standalone landline service and some a standalone broadband service. However, we did not consider that there were likely to be such significant differences in their experience of customer service from those with a combined package that their results would be irrelevant to the Broadband and Talk package.

The above notwithstanding, we understood from the Ofcom report that, where customers had contacted their provider about an issue relating to both landline and broadband, this had been included in both the separate landline and broadband metrics. As such, if the metrics were combined, rather than a new figure produced from the raw data, some responses would have been duplicated and the figures distorted. Because we understood the methodology used to combine the metrics, in both ads, was insufficiently robust and because we did not consider that the claims made sufficiently clear the basis of the comparison, especially in ad (a), we concluded that the ads were misleading.

On this point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications 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  3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors)

2. Not upheld

As noted above, we considered that the sections of the ads referring to customer service would be understood by consumers as a reference to the Broadband and Talk package, rather than either component by itself. We understood that Virgin Media had scored higher in the broadband metric than Sky, but considered that the two potential interpretations of the claim (either a combination of separate elements for a single 'broadband and landline' metric, or the total of two separate 'broadband' and 'landline' measures) were both in relation to the package as a whole. We therefore considered that consumers would understand the statements only as claims that Sky had better customer service across both elements together and would not infer from this that they had a superior level of service for dealing with broadband issues than Virgin Media. We therefore concluded that the ads were not misleading on these grounds.

On this point, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications 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  3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), but did not find them in breach.

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Sky UK Ltd to ensure that future ads did not feature claims for best combined customer service unless the basis of the claim was made clear and the methodology used was sufficiently robust.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.3     3.33     3.7    


More on