Most Misleading Railway Advertising?

[mallard]

I saw the following poster at Leicester station the other day:

(For those who cannot view imaages; the poster contains the large text "KIDS TRAVEL FREE", subtext "Under 5s travel free on all our trains", the East Midlands Trains logo and a "#LightBulbMoments Book now" line.)

As we all know, "Children under five years of age may accompany fare-paying passengers free of charge" has been standard fares policy for decades. However, this poster is highly misleading in my opinion, since:

• It's presented as a promotion. When the poster is removed/replaced it will give the impression that the promotion has ended and that fares must now be paid for under 5s.
• It contains the East Midlands Trains logo, the text "all our trains" and a "hashtag" which may be interpreted to mean that the "promotion" is an EMT idea; this may result in people assuming they have to buy tickets for under 5s on other TOC services (such as the CrossCountry services from this very station).
• There is also the slight possibility that, due someone being inattentive or having an obstructed view, that someone might get the mistaken impression that this applies to children regardless of age (similar to promotions/policies by TfL, ScotRail and others).

As a slight aside, I note that the National Rail "Discounts for Children" page states that under 5s are free "unless the Train Company you want to use specifies otherwise in their notices and other publications." however, the NRCOT contains no corresponding text. Is this an error (unlikely; somebody had to type that and get it approved), out-of-date information or a sign of future plans?

 

[eastdyke]

As a slight aside, I note that the National Rail "Discounts for Children" page states that under 5s are free "unless the Train Company you want to use specifies otherwise in their notices and other publications." however, the NRCOT contains no corresponding text. Is this an error (unlikely; somebody had to type that and get it approved), out-of-date information or a sign of future plans?

At least the NR Discounts for Children page makes it clear that to book a seat for a child under 5 you need to pay for a child rate ticket.
That advert inviting you to 'book now' totally fails to mention that important distinction.
The advert is truly misleading.

 

[SaveECRewards]

A lot of the VT advertising is misleading. I don't mean subjective things like Arrive Awesome or Bound for Glory but when they use the same ad style for both cross franchise ads and ones that are specific to a particular franchise.

"Free WiFi when you book direct" in large print, then in smaller print "book on virgintrainseastcoast.com" then a big Virgin Trains logo in the corner.

This is in the same style as an ad for VTWC that says "book on virgintrains.com", no free WiFi if you book on virgintrains.com but the two areas for confusion are (1) people who think the free WiFi is for all Virgin Trains (2) people who are aware it's only on the east coast routes but think virgintrains.com covers both.

VTEC do have their own style but it's only used on internal comms.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The one in the OP includes one of my major bugbears about the "privatised" system we have: namely the tendency of TOCs to take credit for things they don't control. They even do it over things like the smoking ban, let alone long-standing things like free travel for under-5s.

 

[Railsigns]

Remember when the so-called "GWR" tried to pretend that it's publicly owned?

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/first-greater-western-ltd-a15-316942.html

...Four complainants, including Common Capital, an online blog concerned with social enterprise, who believed that Great Western Railway was owned by an international company, challenged whether the ad (a) was misleading because they believed it implied that the railway was publically owned.....

Action

Ad (a) must not appear again in its current form. We told Great Western Railway not to suggest in future that the railway franchise was publicly owned, if that was not the case.

 

[Mag_seven]

The "every 15 mins" claim by HEX.

The Heathrow Express can no longer claim it runs "every 15 minutes" after a customer complained that the frequency drops to once every 30 minutes late in the day.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...old-to-stop-claiming-to-run-every-15-minutes/

Remember when the so-called "GWR" tried to pretend that it's publicly owned?

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/first-greater-western-ltd-a15-316942.html

I also remember the FGW "Building a Greater West" posters that implied that it was undertaking the infrastructure improvements when they were in fact being done by NR.

 

[SaveECRewards]

The one in the OP includes one of my major bugbears about the "privatised" system we have: namely the tendency of TOCs to take credit for things they don't control. They even do it over things like the smoking ban, let alone long-standing things like free travel for under-5s.

Didn't most TOCs ban smoking well before it was law in Britain so they can take credit for it? GNER was the last holdout (they even added smoking sections in the Mallard refurb despite other operators already banning smoking). GNER finally banned is just before Scotland introduced their ban.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Didn't most TOCs ban smoking well before it was law in Britain so they can take credit for it? GNER was the last holdout (they even added smoking sections in the Mallard refurb despite other operators already banning smoking). GNER finally banned is just before Scotland introduced their ban.

Maybe they did, but it's still misleading to claim today that they now ban smoking solely for our benefit. If I'm in a pub, they don't announce every 20 minutes that "they" have chosen to ban smoking, nor that they were doing so for my benefit or that it makes them better than the pub down the road which is somehow exempt from the now well-established law change!

 

[Taunton]

The "every 15 mins" claim by HEX

Heathrow Express have a range. Paddington being in "Central" London (when it is in the W2 Bayswater postal district, not regarded as Central London) is one.Also the statements by their touts who are allowed inside the secure customs area of airport arrivals and who pretent the HEx is the only way to London, is the most blatant. Question to them : "What is the cheapest way to Hyde Park Corner" [direct on the Piccadilly Line]. Answer : "This ticket here, on the HEx to Paddington, then a taxi".

 

[SaveECRewards]

Maybe they did, but it's still misleading to claim today that they now ban smoking solely for our benefit. If I'm in a pub, they don't announce every 20 minutes that "they" have chosen to ban smoking, nor that they were doing so for my benefit or that it makes them better than the pub down the road which is somehow exempt from the now well-established law change!

Do they still do that? I don't recall such a thing but maybe I've just managed to blank it out.

 

[AY1975]

The Great Western website claims that the new IETs will offer greater comfort, but many people who have travelled on them have complained that the seats are harder and less comfortable than the HSTs which they will replace, especially in standard class. I will have to reserve judgement on that until I first travel on an IET, though. See https://www.gwr.com/about-us/modernising-gwr/iet

 

[AY1975]

Didn't most TOCs ban smoking well before it was law in Britain so they can take credit for it? GNER was the last holdout (they even added smoking sections in the Mallard refurb despite other operators already banning smoking). GNER finally banned is just before Scotland introduced their ban.

Actually that's not quite true - GNER was the last operator of ordinary daytime trains to offer smoking accommodation, but for about two months after GNER banned it, it was still allowed in part of the Lounge Car on the Caledonian Sleeper (which was then operated by ScotRail). This is really getting off topic and not the main focus of this thread, though.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Do they still do that? I don't recall such a thing but maybe I've just managed to blank it out.

I've certainly heard "Smoking is not permitted on any Northern trains or stations" since the turn of the year.

 

[AY1975]

I've certainly heard "Smoking is not permitted on any Northern trains or stations" since the turn of the year.

Well that's true, but I suppose it could be wrongly understood to mean that some other train operators may allow it on their trains and/or stations.

 

[westv]

Clearly it's not the age of the train then.

 

[bb21]

Not everyone understands railway travel inside out like members on this forum.

Classic examples of looking for problems where none exist. Heaven forbid the TOCs trying to promote something in a more glamourous manner than boring rail travel.

Disclaimer: I don't work for EMT.

 

[Mathew S]

Can I suggest that if you really think this advert is misleading you report it to the Advertising Standards Authority?
For what it's worth, I don't find it remotely misleading and I'm sure the ASA won't either, but if you genuinely think otherwise then surely there's more to be gained in reporting it than whining about it on here.

Edit: I'd also say well done EMT for promoting one of the most positive and consumer friendly parts of rail travel.

 

[Clip]

Not everyone understands railway travel inside out like members on this forum.

Classic examples of looking for problems where none exist. Heaven forbid the TOCs trying to promote something in a more glamourous manner than boring rail travel.

I fully agree with this - if this encourages people to use the train with their child more than driving then its a good thing - I see no reason why a TOC should promote any other TOC on their adverts - thats the job of RDG and im sure they can rent some space from TOCs to advertise if they so wish.

Well that's true, but I suppose it could be wrongly understood to mean that some other train operators may allow it on their trains and/or stations.

Who would wrongly undestand this though? People have been aware of the smoking ban for a long time now and if they were using another TOCs trains then they would probably hear the same thing at one of their stations too - as you do at all NR stations so im struggling to understand who these 'people' may actually be to infer that you could smoke on other train operators trains and stations

 

[Ianno87]

I claimed Delay Repay off Virgim West Coast. It was a case of a 10 minute delay to one of their services missing a connection, then the next available train meaning an over-30 minute delay over all.

I had to check a box that said "I was delayed due to a missed connection". Next to that it read "Why not book the Virgin Trains journey direct with us next time, and you'll get Delay Repay automatically?"

Conveniently neglecting to mention that:
-Splitting your ticket is probably more expensive overall
-In my example, I wouldn't have qualified for automatic delay repay as a result

 

[All Line Rover]

Why would it be so difficult to say "kids under 5 travel free on all trains" rather than "kids under 5 travel free on all our trains"?

As the manager of Leicester station, EMT should have an obligation to be neutral in their station advertisements (which would not, I emphasise, prohibit them from advertising unique benefits of their own services).

 

[LAX54]

Why would it be so difficult to say "kids under 5 travel free on all trains" rather than "kids under 5 travel free on all our trains"?

As the manager of Leicester station, EMT should have an obligation to be neutral in their station advertisements (which would not, I emphasise, prohibit them from advertising unique benefits of their own services).

Maybe as they are advertising EMT and not say Virgin Trains ?

 

[Bertie the bus]

As the manager of Leicester station, EMT should have an obligation to be neutral in their station advertisements (which would not, I emphasise, prohibit them from advertising unique benefits of their own services).

That is one of the silliest things ever to be posted on here, and it has a lot of excellent competition. Neutral in their advertising? Totally bizarre.

 

[All Line Rover]

There is a difference between advertising hoardings (managed by e.g. JCDecaux) and information posters controlled by the TOC which manages a station. The sign at Leicester appears to be of the latter kind. It is reasonable to expect EMT, as the company which manages Leicester station, to reflect the existence of other TOCs in such posters.

You mention Virgin. I don't see a problem with Virgin's posters on the WCML stating that they are faster than London Midland from Stoke to London or Stafford to Liverpool. But it would be misleading for them to put up posters at Stoke / Stafford along the lines of: "Wondering how to get to London / Liverpool? Use Virgin Trains." Or "Kids travel free on Virgin Trains services to London / Liverpool." And they don't.

Neutrality is not incompatible with advertising. I find it bizarre that some individuals are not aware of this.

 

[CheekyBandit]

Southeastern posters advertising Leeds Castle. Nearest station Bearsted. Hollingbourne is actually closer - there is a footpath from the station (the short section up the bank isn't strictly a public one) to the lower part of the village then road onwards.

 

[Mathew S]

There is a difference between advertising hoardings (managed by e.g. JCDecaux) and information posters controlled by the TOC which manages a station.

Legally, no, there's no difference at all. Both are bound by exactly the same ASA / BCAP codes. Whether you think there should be a difference is not the same thing as whether there actually is.

 

[All Line Rover]

I don't know if there is a legal difference* like there can be in ticket retailing (where the word in common parlance is the synonym 'impartial'), so I would not wish to assert that there is such a difference.

*Not in terms of the limited statutory advertising regulation that exists, but in terms of the contractual rights of the various TOCs that serve a station.

 

[Mathew S]

I don't know if there is a legal difference* like there can be in ticket retailing (where the word in common parlance is the synonym 'impartial'), so I would not wish to assert that there is such a difference.

*Not in terms of the limited statutory advertising regulation that exists, but in terms of the contractual rights of the various TOCs that serve a station.

Fair point. I've not the first idea what contractual arrangements exist between TOCs etc. re advertising.

The original question, though, was 'is it misleading?' and that's a matter for the statutory regulations. In this case, the average person seeing the advert is going to take it to mean "kids <5 can travel on trains for free" so it's not misleading at all. The reality is that if it's only displayed in staffed train stations EMT would also have more leeway because any customers who are confused can clarify the rules by speaking to staff. At least, I'm sure that would be the argument EMT would make. Rightly or wrongly, the ASA are pretty good at taking a common sense approach to these things, and context is key.

You could make a complaint that it should say "when accompanied by a fare paying adult" but since there are remarkably few five year olds who travel on their own (at least, I hope there are!), and they probably wouldn't be able to read the ad anyway, I'm sure EMT will get away with it.

 

[yorkie]

Some train operators do run genuine "kids travel free" or "Kids for £1" schemes, so I think it is misleading.

They should stick to saying under 5s travel free. Most kids are over 6 by any definition so it's not really within the spirit of the rules, whether it breaks them or not (I hope it does break the rules; if it doesn't then the rules are almost worthless!)

 

[Taunton]

That is one of the silliest things ever to be posted on here, and it has a lot of excellent competition. Neutral in their advertising? Totally bizarre.

Why not, when they are just one of a number of franchised operators of a public utility. It is the network that is provided as a public service, not an individual franchisee's operation.

EMT have a further particular issue in pretending, in their maps etc, that they offer the most straightforward route from Leeds to London, which when you look at their timetable for these, on weekdays, their only two semi-fast departures have both left at the crack of dawn, before most people have even woken up, they being essentially scheduled ecs operations from Leeds depot into their main network.

 

[Mathew S]

They should stick to saying under 5s travel free. Most kids are over 6 by any definition so it's not really within the spirit of the rules, whether it breaks them or not (I hope it does break the rules; if it doesn't then the rules are almost worthless!)

Sorry Yorkie, that's what it does say. The fact that it's in two sentences in two parts of the ad isn't really relevant. I'd forgotten that other companies run different schemes, but really that only makes this ad less misleading because it explains the use of 'our'.

The advertising code is there to protect against genuinely misleading, and potentially harmful, advertising which can cause serious hardship and damage to consumers. Take a look at the enforcement pages of the ASA website if you want some examples.

Also worth remembering that consumers are expected to be intelligent and apply common sense in understanding adverts. If they don't, then as far as the ASA are concerned, that's the consumers fault, not the advertisers. (The opposite emphasis to the consumer rights act, essentially.)

Whether we like it or not, legally there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this advert.