Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
Two regional press ads for Powwownow's conference calling service:
a. Text stated "Empty your pockets with BT MeetMe. Or fill your boots with our free conference calling service. It's your call".
b. Text stated "Pay for a conference calling service. Or don't. It's your call".
Both ads included "Try our conference calling service at powwownow.co.uk - the service is free, you just pay for the phone call" in the body text and the footnote "Free service. You only pay for the cost of your phone call". Further text stated "For business people with more sense than money".
Issue
BT challenged whether:
1. the claim "Empty your pockets with BT MeetMe. Or fill your boots with our free conference calling service" in (a) was misleading, because the ad did not state that the extra cost for their own service would only apply to the person chairing the call, and would otherwise cost the same as Powwownow's service; and
2. the claim "Empty your pockets with BT MeetMe. Or fill your boots with our free conference calling service" denigrated BT.
3. A member of the public challenged whether (b) was misleading because it did not make clear that customers would have to pay costs associated with calling an 0844 number.
Response
1. Via-Vox Ltd t/a Powwownow said they had recently made a number of changes to their advertising to ensure that they made the costs clear to consumers. They said they had consulted CAP Copy Advice when making these changes. They said the ad included the text "you just pay for the phone call" in the body copy, and that this information was repeated in the small print. They said their website included a page which compared the cost of BT's service with their own, and this now included information clarifying that the extra cost for BT's service applied to the person chairing the call only. They said the ad was targeting those who were looking to arrange a conference call, and therefore would chair it, and so believed the comparison was fair.
2. Powwownow said they had not aimed to denigrate BT with the ad. They said they had used commonly used phrases to highlight to consumers the difference in conference calling charges between the two brands. They believed it was important for businesses to become more aware of the true cost of conference calling, including bridging fees. They said they did not intend to repeat the claim.
3. They referred to their response in relation to point 1, and said they made it clear in the ads that there were costs involved in using their service. They said they had been advised by CAP Copy Advice that this approach was likely to comply with the Code. They said that users did not have to use an 0844 number and that if they used their 'Plus' or 'Premium' services (details for which were provided), they had the option of choosing a geographic or freephone number. They said that, along with their 'Free' service, neither of those services charged a bridging free. They said that calls to their 0844 number cost 4.3p per minute and that this was less than the cost per minute of a call from a BT business landline to a geographic number, if it was not included within a bundle. They provided a BT business calls price list.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claim "Empty your pockets with BT MeetMe. Or fill your boots with our free conference calling service" would be understood as a comparison between the price of BT and Powwownow's conference calling services. The CAP Code stated that marketing communications that included a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear, and must not mislead. The ad did not include any clarification of the basis of the comparison, and we considered that it should have included information that the extra cost for BT's service would apply to the person chairing the call only. Because it did not, we concluded the claim was misleading.
On this point ad (a) 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.
(Qualification),
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.
and
3.35
3.35
They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price.
(Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and
3.39
3.39
Marketing communications that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear.
CAP has published a Help Note on Retailers' Price Comparisons and a Help Note on Lowest Price Claims and Price Promises.
(Price comparisons).
2. Not upheld
We considered the claim "Empty your pockets with BT MeetMe. Or fill your boots with our free conference calling service" would be understood as a comparison between the price of BT and Powwownow's conference calling services. Whilst we acknowledged the claim implied BT's service was more expensive, we did not consider that it implied any dishonest or unfair practises by BT. We therefore concluded that the claim did not denigrate BT.
On this point we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. and 3.42 3.42 Marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product, marketer, trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark. (Imitation and denigration) but did not find it in breach.
3. Upheld
We considered that the text "Try our conference calling service at powwownow.co.uk - the service is free, you just pay for the phone call" in the body of the ad made clear that users would need to pay for the phone call to utilise the conference calling service. We considered that because the ad was aimed at businesses and they would have to visit the marketer's website before utilising the service that it was not necessary for the actual per minute call costs to be included in the ad. The 0844 number used by Powwownow usually cost 4.3p per minute to call from a landline, which was cheaper than calls to geographic numbers from BT business lines without a call plan, which cost 13p per minute. However, we understood that call costs to geographic numbers from BT business lines with a call plan were cheaper than that, that those costs were capped for the first hour at 15p or 5p and also that geographic numbers were likely to be included within any inclusive call bundles, which was not the case for 0844 numbers. Powwownow's 'Plus' and 'Premium' services, which offered non-0844 numbers for conference calls, were charged for, and we therefore did not consider them to be relevant to the ad which specifically referred to a free service. We considered that because the ad stated "the service is free", and users had to call an 0844 number, which would often cost more than a call to a geographic number, it should have included a qualification which stated that to obtain the service it was necessary to call an 0844 number. Because it did not include that qualification we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point ad (b) 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.
(Qualification) and
3.23
3.23
Marketing communications must make clear the extent of the commitment the consumer must make to take advantage of a "free" offer.
(Free).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Powwownow to ensure that the basis of price comparisons were made clear, and to ensure that future ads which referred to the "free" nature of their service included a qualification that to obtain the service it was necessary to call using an 0844 number.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.23 3.3 3.33 3.35 3.39 3.42 3.9
