Advertisment
A billboard advertisement for Vodafone broadband featured an alarm clock superimposed onto a street. The text on the advertisement stated:#
“The Big Broadband Wake-Up Call from Vodafone”.
The face of the alarm clock included the wording “from €25 a month*”.
The advertisement included a footnote that stated:
“Subject to eligibility, signing up to €40 per month broadband package (*€15 discount applied for the first 6 months) and annual price increase of €3.50 each April. 24 month contract applies. See Vodafone.ie/broadband”
Complaint
Imagine Communications objected to the advertisement on the following grounds:
Issue 1:
The complainants considered the design of the advertisement was misleading. They said that outdoor advertising was, by definition, seen by consumers when they were on the move and they believed that the advertisement had been designed to induce a consumer to only notice the €25 headline price as it was in large font, whereas the ‘from’ above it was in smaller text. They said that the advertised price of ‘from €25’ was a promotional price for 6 months and that in reality, the price of the plan was €40.
Issue 2:
The complainants considered that the text size of the footnote at the bottom of the advertisement was in very small text that were not legible unless a consumer was in a position to go very close to the poster.
Response
The advertisers responded to the issues raised:
Issue 1:
The advertisers said that the promotional campaign invited customers to join over 275,000 users of their Fibre Broadband service, with pricing advertised as “from €25 a month”. They said that this promotional rate was subject to specific terms and conditions, including eligibility criteria, subscription to a €40/month broadband package on a 24-month contract, a €15 discount applied for the first six months, and an annual price increase of €3.50 each April.
They disagreed with the assertion that the advertisement was misleading as the promotional pricing was clearly marked as a starting price, with the term “from” included in the headline.
They said that the advertisement directed the customer to the associated terms and conditions, outlining the full pricing structure, including the duration of the promotional rate and the subsequent standard monthly fee. They considered that the word “from” had been prominently placed in the headline, as was the asterisk, which made it clear that the offer was subject to terms and conditions. They said that they had taken steps to ensure transparency throughout the customer journey and that at each stage of the sign-up process, customers were presented with a clear breakdown of pricing over the full contract term, including the promotional discount period and the standard rate thereafter. They said that this ensured that all customers were fully informed prior to entering into any agreement.
The advertiser provided the Executive with a screenshot of the broadband plan option presented to a customer once they provided their Eircode to check availability and select their contract length. The screenshot provided detailed the broadband product, included the full monthly price of €40 crossed out with the promotional price of €25 together with the text ‘for 6 months, €40 after that’.
Issue 2:
The advertisers said that the promotional price of €25 had been clearly marked as a starting price, with the term “from” included in the headline and the advertisement had directed the customer to the associated terms and conditions, which outlined the full pricing structure, including the duration of the promotional rate and the subsequent standard monthly fee. They considered that the word “from” had been prominently placed in the headline, as was the asterisk, which made it clear that the offer was subject to terms and conditions.
They said that they had taken steps to ensure transparency throughout the customer journey, and that at each stage of the sign-up process, customers were presented with a clear breakdown of pricing over the full contract term, including the promotional discount period and the standard rate thereafter. They said that this ensured that all customers were fully informed prior to entering into any agreement.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld In Part.
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1 – Not Upheld:
The Council noted the concerns raised regarding the size of the notification that the price was a ‘from’ price and the size of the asterisk. The Council noted the requirements of the Code that an advertisement should not mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise and that an advertisement should not exploit the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of consumers. In this case, the Council noted that the promotional price, the word ‘from’ and the asterisk were all in red font, placed against a white background. The Council considered the size and legibility of the text on the face of the alarm clock and while the noted the word ‘from’ was smaller than the promotional price, they considered that it and the asterisk’s size and prominence were sufficiently clear to consumers. In the circumstances, the Council did not consider the advertising was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised in Issue 1.
Issue 2 – Upheld:
The Council noted the concerns raised regarding the size of the qualifying footnote. The absence of a response addressing the text size was also noted.
The Council noted the requirement in the Code that disclaimers, asterisked, footnoted or “small print” information should, amongst other things, be of sufficient size and/or prominence and be located and presented in such a manner as to be clearly and easily legible.
In this case, the Council considered that no evidence had been provided regarding either the size and prominence of the linked copy or the proportionality of the text size concerned when compared to the main promotional text. While they noted that the font had been in white, they did not consider that its size and prominence had been presented in a manner so as to be clearly and easily legible. In the circumstances, the Council considered that the advertisement was in breach of Section 4.6 of the Code.
Action Required:
The advertisement should not appear in its current form again.
The Council advised advertisers to ensure that disclaimers, asterisked or footnoted small print should be of sufficient size so that it is clearly and easily legible.
