ASA uphold complaint against Tiscali broadband radio advert
26th July 2007
The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) have upheld a complaint made against Tiscali with regards to one of their radio adverts.
The complaint was made by BT and also 2 members of the public who said the advert was mis-leading as the advert had the emphasis on broadband being £9.99 per month and the part of the advert that informed about the price rising to £14.99 after 3 months was difficult to hear.
Tiscali argued that they had a lot to fit into the 30 second slot and that competitiors advertised introductory offers in the same way and used BT's own advert in the national press that displayed a price of £8.95 with the £17.99 thereafter price within their disclaimer in very small print.
ASA Findings: The ASA noted Tiscali's argument that although it was spoken more quickly than all of the preceding information in the ad, the £14.99 price increase after three months was spoken clearly. We also noted, however, that the main emphasis of the ad was on the £9.99 introductory price, which was repeated many times and at a louder volume than the single reference to the £14.99 price which, in contrast, was mentioned once, quickly and softly. We considered that the increase to £14.99 after three months was a significant condition that should have been made clear in the ad. We concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code Section 2 Rule 3 (Misleadingness).
Author: Mark Ward Copyright: BroadbandWatchdog.co.uk - NetMediaUK.com
Tiscali argued that they had a lot to fit into the 30 second slot and that competitiors advertised introductory offers in the same way and used BT's own advert in the national press that displayed a price of £8.95 with the £17.99 thereafter price within their disclaimer in very small print.
The ASA noted Tiscali's argument that although it was spoken more quickly than all of the preceding information in the ad, the £14.99 price increase after three months was spoken clearly. We also noted, however, that the main emphasis of the ad was on the £9.99 introductory price, which was repeated many times and at a louder volume than the single reference to the £14.99 price which, in contrast, was mentioned once, quickly and softly. We considered that the increase to £14.99 after three months was a significant condition that should have been made clear in the ad. We concluded that the ad was misleading.
