Ad description

A TV ad promoting Satsuma Loans stated, "A Satsuma loan is a better way for lots of reasons, but the best ones are: it's cheaper than a loan from QuickQuid and Sunny and Peachy, so it's much easier to swallow." During this voice-over, on-screen text stated "Representative 603% APR". The voice-over continued, "If you need a loan for up to a thousand pounds, representative six oh three per cent APR, come to Satsumaloans.co.uk. A better way."

Issue

Twenty-two complainants challenged whether the voice-over statement of the Representative APR [RAPR] as "six oh three per cent" was ambiguous and therefore misleading.

Response

Provident Personal Credit Ltd t/a Satsuma Loans stated their belief that the ad was not misleading. They said that the ad included an RAPR because it contained a trigger to feature this information. They stated that the figure was given visually and verbally, with the visual representation being present as on-screen text for the first 16 seconds of the ad and the voice-over stating it from 22 seconds. They said that the voice-over effectively reminded viewers of the RAPR that they had just read, and that it was stated in a measured, unhurried tone of voice with no musical or other aural distractions.

Satsuma Loans stated that they could not understand where the risk of ambiguity lay in what they considered to be the use of a common means of voicing a three digit figure and the number 'zero'. They said that many other broadcast ads used this approach, such as when vocalising '0800' telephone numbers. They did not believe that the use of 'oh' rather than 'zero' was misleading or ambiguous, or could possibly convey any other meaning. Satsuma Loans stated that the phrase couldn't be understood by the average consumer to mean anything other than an RAPR of 603%. They questioned whether "six hundred and three per cent" would be less ambiguous than "six oh three per cent" or other iterations. They stated that the overwhelming majority of viewers would be familiar with this manner of representing large numbers.

Clearcast stated that they considered the reference to "six oh three" to be a reasonable use of established linguistic protocols to express the full figure of “six hundred and three”. They said that spelling out three or more digit numbers in this way was used in the common vernacular, and that a sofa might be priced as being available for “seven nine nine pounds” or even just “seven nine nine”. They stated that the use of “oh” was often for the purposes of pronouncing numbers in a ‘shorthand’ style and was specifically more suitable for this purpose than “zero”, which was more frequently used for expressing potentially standalone numbers, contributing to the overall effect that what is being spelling out is a whole hundred-based number. Clearcast did not believe the use of language in the ad to be ambiguous, stating that "six oh three" is a legitimate way of pronouncing “six hundred and three”, which was the RAPR. They said that this was further reinforced by the written presentation of the number on screen.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that the complainants were concerned that ambiguity could arise either from the use of the word “oh” instead of “zero” or from obfuscation of whether the RAPR was, for example, 603% or 6.03%. We acknowledged that the voice-over was delivered at a reasonable pace and clearly enunciated, and that each digit was audible. We considered that the use of the word “oh” rather than “zero” was a common way in which to describe the digit and therefore unlikely in itself to obscure the RAPR figure. We considered that the pronunciation "six hundred and three" would have provided most clarity, but appreciated that the separate statement of each digit was a reasonably common way in which to present numbers. We acknowledged the complainants' concerns that this approach was ambiguous because the RAPR could have been understood to be 6.03%, but noted that a decimal point was not stated in the voice-over. We considered that, in the absence of an articulated decimal point, consumers would be very unlikely to interpret the figure as 6.03%, particularly in light of its inclusion in on-screen text, and that, while the more common pronunciation of the figure would have been unequivocal, the RAPR as stated in the ad would be understood as 603%. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under 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) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.2    


More on