Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A page on everycontactnumber.com featured the British Sky Broadcasting Ltd 'Sky' logo and was headed "Sky Customer Service 0843 [NUMBER]." Further text stated "SKY CUSTOMER SERVICE - 0843 [NUMBER] You can find Sky Customer Services on 0843 [NUMBER] ... When you ring Sky Customer Services on 0843 [NUMBER] you will then have a number of other choices given to you". The page also included information about what services could be carried out using the phone line, such as discussing billing issues. The page made several further references to "Sky Customer Services" and included an embedded video of a Sky Broadband ad.
Issue
British Sky Broadcasting Ltd challenged whether the ad:
1. misleadingly implied that the advertiser was associated with Sky;
2. misleadingly implied that the number given was the official Sky customer service number; and
3. omitted information that consumers would pay more for calling the number given than they would for the official Sky customer service number.
Response
1., 2. & 3. Everycontactnumber.com (ECN) said that the page in question, and every page on the site, featured a disclaimer stating that contact numbers for the listed companies could be found in the public domain, that the service provided was a call-forwarding service to the organisations detailed and that by calling the number provided, consumers agreed to pay 5p per minute from BT landlines (and more from mobiles or other networks). They said that the contact page of their website stated that they were not affiliated with, or agents of, the listed organisations, and that the 'about us' page reiterated this message and the call-forwarding nature of their service, as well as a statement saying that the information provided was available for free elsewhere. ECN stated that their terms and conditions also contained all this information, although acknowledged that the way in which this was presented on the site could be viewed as ambiguous. They said that their website had their own identity, branding, colour scheme and logo, which was used consistently throughout the site, and that this clearly identified them as the marketer. They stated that the embedded video was available in the public domain through YouTube and that, due to the nature of the page and the philosophy of the site, they felt using the media was appropriate and relevant to page visitors. They reiterated that they did not think they mislead visitors about who they were or who provided the service. ECN stated that they had removed the Sky logo from the page in question, and that they were willing to review their copy to address any ambiguity or uncertainty.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the website was branded with ECN's colours and logo, and that the site itself was clearly owned and operated by a third party. However, we considered that the inclusion of an image appearing to be Sky's logo would indicate to consumers that Sky had given their approval and endorsement to the service, and that it was therefore officially associated with them. We also considered statements such as "find Sky Customer Services on [NUMBER]" and "When you ring Sky Customer Services on [NUMBER]" implied that callers would be connected directly to Sky customer enquiries and that the service provided was therefore affiliated with Sky. We noted ECN's assertion that their contact and “about” pages made clear that they were not affiliated with the organisations to whom they forwarded calls, but as this was not prominently included on the page in question consumers would be able to place a call without seeing this information, and that in any case this disclaimer contradicted rather than clarified the overall impression of the ad. We therefore concluded that the ad 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.
and
3.5
3.5
Marketing communications must not materially mislead by omitting the identity of the marketer.
Some marketing communications must include the marketer's identity and contact details. Marketing communications that fall under the Database Practice or Employment sections of the Code must comply with the more detailed rules in those sections.
Marketers should note the law requires marketers to identify themselves in some marketing communications. Marketers should take legal advice.
(Misleading Advertising),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification), and
3.41
3.41
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer about who manufactures the product.
(Imitation and denigration).
2. Upheld
The ASA understood that the number in question was not the official Sky customer services phone line, but that consumers calling it would be forwarded to the service at a cost of 5p per minute. We considered that the phrases "find Sky Customer Services on [NUMBER]" and "When you ring Sky Customer Services on [NUMBER]" implied that consumers would call straight through to customer services, and that the number was therefore an official one. We noted that a disclaimer at the bottom of the page stated that ECN operated a call forwarding service, but considered that this was insufficiently prominent and appeared after the information that consumers needed for them to make a call. We also considered that it contradicted rather than clarified the overall impression of the ad. We therefore concluded that the ad 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.
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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification), and
3.41
3.41
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer about who manufactures the product.
(Imitation and denigration).
3. Upheld
The ASA considered that, as the ads contained references to connecting directly with Sky, consumers would understand that they were calling the official Sky customer services number and would therefore be charged the standard fee applicable to that type of call. We understood that calls to the official number were free to Sky Talk customers and charged at the same rate as standard 01/02 numbers for most other callers, whereas the 0843 number used by ECN would be charged at a different rate. As consumers would be charged a different amount than if they called the official number we considered that this charge needed to be made clear in the ad. We noted ECN's assertion that the disclaimer at the bottom of the page gave information about call charges from BT landlines. However, we noted that this information was significantly separated from the number and the description of the customer service line, and that the existence of this qualification was not indicated to consumers. Although we acknowledged that the information was contained on the page in question, we considered that it was insufficiently prominent and therefore not clearly communicated to consumers. We concluded that the ad 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.
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.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told everycontactnumber.com to ensure that their future advertising did not imply an association with an unaffiliated third party, made clear that the numbers they provided were for a call forwarding service rather than the official numbers for third-party services, and where charges differed from the official phone-line rates that this was clearly communicated to consumers.
