BT’s TV Adverts Banned for Misleading Infinity Broadband Quality Claims

[Scubbie]

BT's TV Adverts Banned for Misleading Infinity Broadband Quality Claims - ISPreview UK

Telecoms giant BT has landed itself in hot water again after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was forced to ban three of their TV adverts for making “misleading” BTInfinity (FTTC) “fibre broadband” quality claims versus rival UK ISPs Sky Broadband and Virgin Media.

The three adverts, which were all seen in October 2015, attracted several complaints from Sky Broadband and one member of the public. The first advert (a) boasted of “BT Infinity’s super responsiveness when you’re online gaming” (a vague reference to latency / ping times and or jitter performance) and claimed that BT was better for this than Virgin Media.

The second advert (b) featured a topless man using a hula-hoop and boasted that BT Infinity delivered “SUPER SMOOTH VIDEO CALLING“, which later used evidence from a SamKnows report to claim that “BT Infinity offers smoother video calling than Virgin Media.”

The final advert (c) featured a cheetah and an actress boasting about the performance of BT Infinity, which rounded off by claiming that “BT Infinity offers faster download speeds than Sky“. Naturally Sky was not amused and complained that there was not enough evidence in the advert for such a comparison to be verified.

Similarly a member of the public, who claimed to have used both Virgin Media and BT Infinity, complained that they had seen “no difference in their user experience” between either service in reference to online gaming performance (a) and video calling smoothness (b). The ASA ultimately upheld all three complaints and their ruling is very long, making it difficult to summarise.

Broadly speaking the ASA agreed that BT had not adequately tested enough of their service or provided enough evidence in order to substantiate their various claims

ASA Ruling (REF: A15-317382)

We considered that the claims “BT Infinity offers more responsive gaming than Virgin Media” and “BT Infinity offers smoother video calling than Virgin Media” had not been adequately substantiated and therefore concluded that ads (a) and (b) were misleading.

We [also] considered that the claim “BT Infinity offers faster download speeds than Sky” had not been adequately substantiated and therefore concluded that ad (c) was misleading.

We considered that, because not all the necessary data and results were available, the information provided [advert c] was not sufficient to ensure the details of the comparison could be verified by consumers and competitors, and concluded that the ad breached the Code.

As usual the adverts were banned in their previous form and the ASA told BT “not to repeat the claims in the ads unless they held documentary evidence to substantiate them and made available sufficient information about their methodology and data for verification.”

The outcome is hardly surprising because it is difficult to accurately compare latency times / jitter (online gaming performance) or something as ambiguous as the “smoothness” of video calling, particularly as the experience will vary between different customers, locations, servers and network / computer setups (e.g. wifi or wired) etc. The ASA clearly recognised that more data was needed in order to support such claims.

[Isitme]

Another lick on the wrist by the toothless watchdog.

Just passed a huge billboard this morning advertising high speed Sky Fibre. Fifty yards further, another huge bill board, this time claiming BT Fibre had a much higher start speed than Sky. Sky 38MB* - BT - 52MB*.

*Not typos, it actually says MBytes, not Mbits.

[Scubbie]

BT said that they would be pushing their new "up to 52mb" product.

[The Realist]

Companies like leading the blind and treat people like donkey's with a bloody carrot and a stick.

The difference between 38 and 52 is not noticeable to the everyday user and they just like playing with words and treat people like thick idiots.

[Scubbie]

Unfortunately for anyone who is unfamiliar with the full facts, 52 does sound a lot better than 38. If they happen to be the same or very similar price, then guess what they're going to get?

Of course if their line can only support 25mb, then that's what they'll get.

[The Realist]

Yep nail on the head.

[gorebrush]

When I first had SF - I had the 40/2 then 40/10 speeds. My estimates at the time were 53Mb and I took a bit of a punt on pro and ended up with 60/20.

If I'd had remained at that speed and 52 came along, then I'd probably have dropped back to a 52Mb product.

I somehow manage to then get some big speed bumps about a year ago and now have an attainable rate of just about 79500/2000 and I receive the full 80.

I do wish they would hurry up with G.Fast etc though.

[dholdi]

I somehow manage to then get some big speed bumps about a year ago and now have an attainable rate of just about 79500/2000 and I receive the full 80.

2000 is a typo I presume ?

[bubblegun]

Another lick on the wrist by the toothless watchdog.

Just passed a huge billboard this morning advertising high speed Sky Fibre. Fifty yards further, another huge bill board, this time claiming BT Fibre had a much higher start speed than Sky. Sky 38MB* - BT - 52MB*.

*Not typos, it actually says MBytes, not Mbits.

The graphic is also not in scale. The advert is like a car speed dial.
Sky is shown as low speed and the BT is shown as like top-speed however the 14Mb potential difference is nothing like that much. There is no scale on the graphic it has just been chosen to make BT look better.

I can feel a ban coming but of course only after it has stopped running.

[Edit] Here's a picture of the offending graphic:

[Isitme]

The graphic is also not in scale. The advert is like a car speed dial.
...........................

[Edit] Here's a picture of the offending graphic:

That's the one, it looks more effective on a billboard about 30 feet by 15 feet. As you say, it will probably get banned after the promotion has finished