Sky wins ad wrangle with Virgin
A Virgin Media ad campaign has been banned after a complaint from BSkyB that it compared the two companies' services in a misleading way.
A national and regional press ad, entitled "The real deal" included a table comparing the two companies' TV, broadband and phone services.
BSkyB and a member of the public challenged six claims and comparisons made by Virgin Media.
Complainants said the claimed "real price" was misleading because it implied the £30-a-month Virgin Media fee, for cable TV, landline phone and broadband, was standard and not just a promotional offer.
A second complaint against the campaign was that the ad implied that access to films and TV shows on Virgin's Top TV package were free when they were pay-per-view.
Thirdly, that the ad was accused of unfairly comparing Virgin Media's 2MB broadband service against Sky's 8MB service.
Sky criticised the fact that Virgin stated, of its rival's 8MB broadband service, that "the further you live from the exchange the slower it gets", while not also noting that speed degradation also applies to its own service.
In its defence, Virgin said it had been "unaware" of Sky's 2MB offering, that the offer was the "real price" because it included costs that are often not stated, such as line rental, and was not just promotional as the offer was for a 12-month minimum contract period.
Virgin Media also said that small print pointed out that films, music videos and TV shows from its library had to be paid for.
In relation to the difference in broadband services, Virgin Media argued that "the distinguishing factor between the two networks was that Virgin Media's cable broadband service was not affected by the distance a customer lived from the exchange, unlike Sky's ADSL broadband service."
The Advertising Standards Authority upheld all six complaints against Virgin Media.
It considered that the 2MB versus the 8MB comparison to be unfair and misleading.
The ad watchdog also said that although the £30 offer was valid for a contract period of a year, the standard price of £39 subsequently applied and that the offer was, in fact, limited.
This, the ASA said, meant that the claims "the real deal" and "the real price" were "ambiguous" and "misleading by omission".
The ASA said that the small print Virgin Media used to tell customers that its library was paid-for was "inadequate" to make clear that not all content was free.
It added that although Virgin's broadband speed was not dependent on distance, unlike Sky's, there was still speed degradation as more customers used its service. Virgin should have pointed this out.
The ASA told Virgin not to repeat the ads.
Mark Sweney
Wednesday August 1, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
A Virgin Media ad campaign has been banned after a complaint from BSkyB that it compared the two companies' services in a misleading way.
A national and regional press ad, entitled "The real deal" included a table comparing the two companies' TV, broadband and phone services.
BSkyB and a member of the public challenged six claims and comparisons made by Virgin Media.
Complainants said the claimed "real price" was misleading because it implied the £30-a-month Virgin Media fee, for cable TV, landline phone and broadband, was standard and not just a promotional offer.
A second complaint against the campaign was that the ad implied that access to films and TV shows on Virgin's Top TV package were free when they were pay-per-view.
Thirdly, that the ad was accused of unfairly comparing Virgin Media's 2MB broadband service against Sky's 8MB service.
Sky criticised the fact that Virgin stated, of its rival's 8MB broadband service, that "the further you live from the exchange the slower it gets", while not also noting that speed degradation also applies to its own service.
In its defence, Virgin said it had been "unaware" of Sky's 2MB offering, that the offer was the "real price" because it included costs that are often not stated, such as line rental, and was not just promotional as the offer was for a 12-month minimum contract period.
Virgin Media also said that small print pointed out that films, music videos and TV shows from its library had to be paid for.
In relation to the difference in broadband services, Virgin Media argued that "the distinguishing factor between the two networks was that Virgin Media's cable broadband service was not affected by the distance a customer lived from the exchange, unlike Sky's ADSL broadband service."
The Advertising Standards Authority upheld all six complaints against Virgin Media.
It considered that the 2MB versus the 8MB comparison to be unfair and misleading.
The ad watchdog also said that although the £30 offer was valid for a contract period of a year, the standard price of £39 subsequently applied and that the offer was, in fact, limited.
This, the ASA said, meant that the claims "the real deal" and "the real price" were "ambiguous" and "misleading by omission".
The ASA said that the small print Virgin Media used to tell customers that its library was paid-for was "inadequate" to make clear that not all content was free.
It added that although Virgin's broadband speed was not dependent on distance, unlike Sky's, there was still speed degradation as more customers used its service. Virgin should have pointed this out.
The ASA told Virgin not to repeat the ads.
Mark Sweney
Wednesday August 1, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
