Ad description
A Video on Demand (VOD) ad and a radio ad for Trainline:
a. The VOD ad, seen on ITVX on 28 December 2024, featured a robot on a fictional planet who declared a search as unsuccessful. The robot stated, “Just download the Trainline app. You won’t find cheaper same-day tickets anywhere else, but if you do, they’ll refund the difference.” Text superimposed at the bottom of the screen stated, “Exclusions apply. Price difference refunded for in-app purchases on same day travel. Price evidence must be provided within 5 days of purchase. T&Cs at trainline.com”.
b. The radio ad, heard on Heart 90s on 22 January 2025, featured sounds of digging and a man who shouted, “I’ve found them!”. A woman responded, “Tickets cheaper than Trainline?”, to which the man replied, “Ah, no, sorry, it’s just another priceless relic […] we could just download the Trainline app. We won’t find cheaper tickets anywhere else but, if we do, they’ll refund the difference.” A voiceover stated, “Exclusions apply. Price difference refunded for in-app purchases on LNER, Grand Central, Lumo and Hull Trains. Sixth of Jan to twentieth of Feb. Price proof must be provided within five days of purchase. Ts&Cs at trainline.com.”
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims “You won’t find cheaper same-day tickets anywhere else” in ad (a), and “We won’t find cheaper tickets anywhere else” in ad (b) were misleading.
Response
Trainline.com Ltd said that ad (a) was part of their "Best Price Guarantee" campaign (BPG) through which UK consumers could claim back the price difference if they found a cheaper same-day ticket than a ticket they had purchased using the Trainline app. Between 6 January to 28 February 2025, they had extended the BPG to tickets booked via their app on any day during that period (i.e., not limited to same day tickets only) on selected routes. They said ad (b) related to that wider guarantee. The extended promotion finished on 28 February, and both ads had since stopped running. They said they had no plans to re-air either of the ads, and that planned future advertising campaigns for their BPG would not feature the claim “you won’t find cheaper”.
Trainline believed their BPG was a price promise, rather than a lowest price guaranteed offer, signified by the use of the word “guarantee” (rather than “guaranteed”), and said they had worded the claim with the CAP Code in mind. They said such price promises were common in the rail ticket retailing industry, and that many retailers had similar policies. They said the wording of the claim made clear that although they were confident in their prices, if consumers were able to find cheaper tickets, they would refund the difference. They believed that wording removed any possibility of consumers being misled.
Trainline stated that all rail ticket prices in the UK were set by train operating companies in accordance with the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (TSA), and that third-party retailers (including themselves) were not able to set or alter fare prices. Ticket prices from train operating companies were automatically fed into Trainline’s system and shown to consumers without any changes. They were therefore confident that they offered same day tickets purchased via their app for at least the same price as train operating companies. They believed that because they did not charge booking fees for same-day tickets purchased through their app, their fares would either be at or below the price of train operators.
Trainline highlighted their SplitSave technology, which they offered on 88% of routes. The feature automatically split journeys into multiple legs, which often led to a cheaper overall fare for the consumer. Trainline were aware of only one train operating company that had a split ticketing feature, and that operator utilised Trainline’s technology. They were therefore confident that, on all routes where SplitSave was offered, Trainline would be not just at parity with, but cheaper than, train operating companies. Trainline stated that, due to how frequently ticket prices changed, ongoing monitoring was built into their platform, and happened automatically when a consumer made a search. Consequently, they were unable to provide supporting data or visual evidence of the price monitoring function.
Trainline said their BPG campaign had been running for over a year and had received positive consumer feedback, with no reports that people had been confused by the terminology in the ads. In that period, only minimal refunds had been requested, which Trainline believed indicated that they frequently offered tickets cheaper than, or at the same price as their competitors.
Radiocentre believed listeners would understand the claim in ad (b) as effectively being a price promise. They understood that price promises were a common and well-known marketing strategy with which listeners would be familiar. They thought the offer had been expressed in a clear, non-misleading way, and with appropriate qualification. Prior to clearance, they had accepted substantiation provided by Trainline that the difference on any cheaper tickets found would be refunded, subject to the conditions specified. By offering to refund the difference in the event of a challenge, Trainline had ensured that its prices were always unbeatable.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claims “You won’t find cheaper same-day tickets anywhere else” and “we won’t find cheaper tickets anywhere else” to mean that Trainline offered train tickets for the lowest possible price compared to other providers, and therefore it was unnecessary to look for cheaper tickets elsewhere. We considered that impression was reinforced by the fantastical scenarios depicted in the ads. Ad (a) featured a robot conducting a mission on a fictional planet. Ad (b) featured an archaeological dig. Both ads suggested that the characters were attempting to find tickets cheaper than Trainline’s, but were unable to do so, even though they had gone to extraordinary lengths.
We considered that rail ticketing was complex, and most consumers were unlikely to have knowledge of the rules which governed how ticket prices were set. Overall, consumers were likely to understand from the ads that Trainline was able to offer competitively priced tickets, and did so by monitoring their fares against their competitors. We therefore expected Trainline to hold evidence to substantiate the claims “You won’t find cheaper same-day tickets anywhere else” and “we won’t find cheaper tickets anywhere else”.
We understood that the framework in which train operating companies could create rail fares was set out by the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, and that third-party retailers, such as Trainline, were not permitted to create or sell their own fares outside of that framework. The tickets sold by Trainline would therefore be available at the same price from the train operating company that set the fare, notwithstanding any additional fees. Because Trainline did not charge a booking fee on same-day tickets purchased through their app, the tickets would be sold at the price set by the train operator, and therefore could not be found cheaper elsewhere. We considered that was not made clear in the ads, which gave a misleading impression of the basis of their price promise and the value of their offering.
We also understood that Trainline incorporated split ticketing software into its platform, which they called SplitSave. Split ticketing involved splitting a complete journey into two or more single tickets, sometimes resulting in a cheaper fare for the consumer. Trainline’s SplitSave automatically split consumer’s journeys without the need for them to change trains unnecessarily, or alter their route. They therefore believed that, on routes where SplitSave was offered, they would be cheaper than train operating companies, the majority of whom did not offer split ticketing. However, we considered that this assumption alone did not constitute adequate substantiation for the claims featured in the ads. In order to substantiate those claims, Trainline would need to show evidence of price monitoring to ensure that they were offering the cheapest tickets. However, we understood that Trainline stated they were unable to provide such evidence, as ongoing price monitoring was built-in to their automated platform.
We understood from Trainline that since the introduction of the BPG, they had received minimal requests for refunds from the scheme, which they believed demonstrated that they were cheaper than, or had achieved parity with, their competitors. However, we considered that the ads discouraged consumers from searching for cheaper tickets elsewhere by stating that they could not be found, which may have been the reason for the minimal requests for refunds that Trainline received. Moreover, Trainline confirmed that they had issued some refunds, which highlighted that it was, on some occasions, possible to find cheaper tickets. We therefore concluded that the claims that customers “won’t find cheaper tickets anywhere else” were misleading, as cheaper tickets had been achievable in some circumstances.
We considered that without any evidence of adequate, ongoing price monitoring, Trainline were unable to substantiate the claims that cheaper tickets could not be found elsewhere. We understood that Trainline had intended the ads to convey their confidence in their prices. However, the claims were likely to be understood as absolute, rather than simply conveying confidence, which we considered was misleading on the above basis.
For those reasons, we considered the claims “You won’t find cheaper same-day tickets anywhere else” in ad (a), and “We won’t find cheaper tickets anywhere else” in ad (b) were misleading, and concluded that the ads breached the Code.
Ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation), and ad (b) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Substantiation).
