A website banner and a press ad for Vodafone have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for making unsubstantiated comparative claims.
The ads contained copy that read: “you can rely on our award-winning network to keep you connected to the things and people that matter.”
The network provider’s rival EE complained to the ASA, challenging whether the phrase ‘UK’s award-winning network’ was misleading and if it could be substantiated as it implies that Vodafone is the ‘only reliable network’.
Vodafone responded by stating that the claim was not comparative and that it ‘should be interpreted to mean that Vodafone as a UK Network Provider was reliable and had won awards in the UK’.
The brand believes that having awards related to different aspects of their organisation is a ‘key factor in giving consumers confidence to rely on them’.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest marketing campaigns sent straight to your inbox each morning
While the advertising watchdog recognised that the ‘award winning’ claims were related to the ‘consistency and connectivity’ of Vodafone’s service, the authority nonetheless considered that the average consumer would interpret it as an implied comparative claim that Vodafone had been objectively found to provide the most consistent connectivity amongst all UK telecoms providers.
The ASA added: “Because we considered that the claims ‘The UK’s Reliable, Award-winning network’ and ‘On the UK’s reliable award-winning network’ were comparative, we required objective substantiation for that comparative and superior claim. We understood that Vodafone had intended to make a non-comparative claim and therefore did not hold such evidence.
“We therefore concluded that the claims ‘The UK’s Reliable, Award-winning network’ and ‘On the UK’s reliable award-winning network’ had not been substantiated and were likely to mislead.
“The ads must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Vodafone Ltd not to make an implied comparative claim unless they held objective comparative evidence to substantiate the claim as it would be understood by consumers.”
