Most Misleading Railway Advertising?

[yorkie]

Sorry Yorkie, that's what it does say

In a much smaller font!

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

Then the laws are rubbish.

 

[Mathew S]

In a much smaller font!

Not exactly small, or hidden from view, though. I don't think any reasonable person could fail to notice it, and I'm sure you don't really believe that either.

Then the laws are rubbish.

Maybe so, but the law is the law. Write to your MP, or start a campaign, if you wish, but unless/until the law is changed - or reinterpreted by ASA/CAP more probably - this is where we are.

 

[yorkie]

Not exactly small, or hidden from view, though. I don't think any reasonable person could fail to notice it, and I'm sure you don't really believe that either.

It's not necessarily that people will "fail" to notice it, but it is clearly designed to get your attention to the apparent fact that "kids" go free, it is only when you look at the detail you realise that most kids don't go free.

Maybe so, but the law is the law. Write to your MP, or start a campaign, if you wish, but unless/until the law is changed - or reinterpreted by ASA/CAP more probably - this is where we are.

I cannot be bothered to do that; I'll just say I think it's rubbish and that'll do for me.

 

[Starmill]

Just because the advert isn't illegal that hardly means it isn't nonsense. In my view, it is nonsense for EMT to say that children travel free and then say somewhere else that only children under 5 travel free. The two statements are contradictory. Also consider: if the advert said 'Children under 5 travel for free!' then would it look as good as what they have actually put?

Given that ScotRail genuinely offer free travel to 'children' accompanied by an adult paying full fare, they should be embarrassed by this. Northern also used to have some similar marketing.

 

[matt_world2004]

Oysters always cheaper is quite misleading,

 

[bb21]

I wonder how the ASA would rule on this given the level of "outrage" on this thread. Perhaps someone could register a complaint and see what they say.

I wonder where those supposed "misled" people are.

 

[Mathew S]

I wonder how the ASA would rule on this given the level of "outrage" on this thread. Perhaps someone could register a complaint and see what they say.

I wonder where those supposed "misled" people are.

Quite. If someone can present me with one real member of the public who has actually been misled by this advert I'll eat my hat (boiled with a light dusting of icing sugar please). There are genuinely misleading ads out there: this isn't one of them.

 

[matt_world2004]

I wonder how the ASA would rule on this given the level of "outrage" on this thread. Perhaps someone could register a complaint and see what they say.

I wonder where those supposed "misled" people are.

They will rule in favour of the advert most likely. Semantically the advert is correct. It could be argued that it implies exclusion of other operators. But there is nothing illegal about that

They might have some prominence issues with the under 5s bit which the asa would rule on and atoc may have some impartial retailing issues. But atocs impartial retailing issues are not in the remit of the ASA.

 

[Mathew S]

The two statements are contradictory.

Only if you choose to view them as two statements; as one advert they're perfectly clear.

 

[matt_world2004]

Peckham rye has an southern advert informing customers that freedom passes are not valid before 9:30 from this station. That is certainly misleading.

 

[Starmill]

Only if you choose to view them as two statements; as one advert they're perfectly clear.

Any reasonable person would agree with me that that 'Kids travel free' and 'Children under 5 travel free' are mutually exclusive statements. Both cannot be true, so which is it? The poster does not make clear. I'm not saying it meets the criteria for misleading, but I am in no doubt at all that it meets my criteria for nonsense.

 

[Marklund]

Most of the early Trainline adverts claiming they'll save you money compared with buying a ticket on the day at the station.
Well yes, but they were comparing Advance fares with non-advance, and you could buy the same advance fares at the station anyway...

 

[neilmc]

The most misleading railway advertisement I've EVER seen is the famous one of a dancing, smoking fisherman.

Underneath the picture it says "Skegness Is SO Bracing" and, in smaller type "It's Quicker By Rail!". Not sure which is the biggest lie.

 

[Clip]

Any reasonable person would agree with me that that 'Kids travel free' and 'Children under 5 travel free' are mutually exclusive statements. Both cannot be true, so which is it? The poster does not make clear. I'm not saying it meets the criteria for misleading, but I am in no doubt at all that it meets my criteria for nonsense.

Unless something has changed in the way we are to read things then its always left to right and as such it read correctly and thus its your criteria that may be wrong.

 

[bb21]

They will rule in favour of the advert most likely. Semantically the advert is correct. It could be argued that it implies exclusion of other operators. But there is nothing illegal about that

It does not imply the exclusion of other operators, unless one chooses to read into it what it doesn't say. EMT are highlighting a travelling benefit for younger customers which not everyone would be fully aware, to hopefully get people, who otherwise may automatically go for the car option for family travel, to consider train travel in a more favourable light and give it consideration next time. Many people would not be aware of it. (Yes, really. Many may be aware of some sort of discount for youngsters but not necessarily exactly what.)

I don't understand the issue with the supposed implying "exclusion of other operators" that many seem to take offence to. Even if, for argument's sake, let's say that is exactly what is happening here, what is the harm? The only operators who serve routes out of Leicester all have completely different markets, except in an extremely limited set of far-flung destinations. It is not as if by doing so EMT can somehow magically persuade people to change their travel patterns. Then even in the overwhelming majority of such cases, the biggest deciding factors for people's choice of trains/routes would be overall prices, convenience, comfort, and time. Whether kids get free travel or not would hardly enter the purchaser's mind, as it would be part of the consideration for overall prices. The same could even be said for the overwhelming majority of journeys nationwide where there is a genuine choice.

They might have some prominence issues with the under 5s bit which the asa would rule on and atoc may have some impartial retailing issues. But atocs impartial retailing issues are not in the remit of the ASA.

I really don't understand the objection regarding the "under 5s" clause, as it is prominently displayed right next to the main sentence.

I could understand it somewhat if the sentence were printed in a corner in illegible fonts when read from a distance, eg. the opposite platform.

 

[Mathew S]

Any reasonable person would agree with me that that 'Kids travel free' and 'Children under 5 travel free' are mutually exclusive statements. Both cannot be true, so which is it? The poster does not make clear. I'm not saying it meets the criteria for misleading, but I am in no doubt at all that it meets my criteria for nonsense.

I think a great many adverts are nonsense. I don't agree this one is. As I see it, the text insert is clarifying the statement made by the main body of the ad, providing additional information that the consumer needs. Perhaps, at a pinch, it could be bigger, but I'm sure it's big enough.

Adverts are judged as a whole, essentially, not as a series of individual statements.

We're not going to agree, but as I said to Yorkie, these are the rules. If people don't like them there are mechanisms to make that known and seek change. In the meantime, there's very little value judging things by standards which don't exist, however much we might wish they did.

 

[Starmill]

As I see it, the text insert is clarifying the statement made by the main body of the ad, providing additional information that the consumer needs.

Clearly this is wrong. It does not clarify it at all. Most children are aged 5 to 15 inclusive. Therefore, the statement 'kids travel free' is for the most part wrong, and contradicted by the poster itself.

Consider this: if the poster said only the white words on blue, that would be complete and correct. There is no additional information provided by the illuminated text, but there is a contradiction. So tell me why EMT have added this part to the advert?

 

[yorkie]

In the meantime, there's very little value judging things by standards which don't exist, however much we might wish they did.

We can judge it by whatever standards we see fit. It's a rubbish advert, designed to grab attention by giving false hope when people see the headline, only for the reality of the smaller text to kick in. It won't get them good publicity: it will make people be less trusting of them.

 

[Mathew S]

So tell me why EMT have added this part to the advert?

Because it's a lot more attention grabbing and attractive, I imagine.

It won't get them good publicity: it will make people be less trusting of them.

Evidently the EMT marketing team has evidence that would disagree with you, or they wouldn't be running the ad. "Look how awesome we are, we let little kids go on a train ride for free" is hardly a bad message for them, ultimately.

 

[yorkie]

Because it's a lot more attention grabbing and attractive, I imagine.

Yes, the attention grabbing part is the part that says "kids" not "under 5s"

Evidently the EMT marketing team has evidence that would disagree with you, or they wouldn't be running the ad. "Look how awesome we are, we let little kids go on a train ride for free" is hardly a bad message for them, ultimately.

I don't see any evidence they have evidence ().

Loads of companies have been caught running ads that have backfired on them recently. Do you think they all had evidence that their adverts were not going to generate bad feeling?

Their large print message is not "Look how awesome we are, we let little kids go on a train ride for free", it is actually "Look how awesome we are, we let kids go on a train ride for free" only for the smaller print to admit that most kids do not actually travel free. If you think that's going to make people feel good about the company, then I think you'll find that not to be universally the case.

 

[eastdyke]

My daughter (who at the time had 2 under 5s) tried to book seats and soon found out the truth. That 'travel' meant a seat only if:
either the train was not busy/full (it was) or she paid 2 child fares.
The 'book now' in the advert is fatuous, you cannot book free travel for any kids.
QED

 

[Mathew S]

Yes, the attention grabbing part is the part that says "kids" not "under 5s"

I don't see any evidence they have evidence ().

Loads of companies have been caught running ads that have backfired on them recently. Do you think they all had evidence that their adverts were not going to generate bad feeling?

Their large print message is not "Look how awesome we are, we let little kids go on a train ride for free", it is actually "Look how awesome we are, we let kids go on a train ride for free" only for the smaller print to admit that most kids do not actually travel free. If you think that's going to make people feel good about the company, then I think you'll find that not to be universally the case.

It doesn't need to be universally the case though, there just needs to be more postive reactions than negative ones, so there's a net gain.

 

[Mathew S]

My daughter (who at the time had 2 under 5s) tried to book seats and soon found out the truth. That 'travel' meant a seat only if:
either the train was not busy/full (it was) or she paid 2 child fares.
The 'book now' in the advert is fatuous, you cannot book free travel for any kids.
QED

Hmm, the rare valid point. Well spotted.

 

[Clip]

We can judge it by whatever standards we see fit. It's a rubbish advert, designed to grab attention by giving false hope when people see the headline, only for the reality of the smaller text to kick in. It won't get them good publicity: it will make people be less trusting of them.

Many adverts across all forms of media have some extra small print after a big flashy headline - in fact when you here some on radio they then have about 20 seconds of telling you the small print and by that you must think that they all give false hope?

This has gone on for years and the ASA are happy with them and allow them so its no different in this context either

 

[SaveECRewards]

VTEC have been known to have to redo their ads, they had one that claimed that the only place you could book with no fees was their website (they had 'BUT ONLY' in upper case and underlined to emphasise the point). The modified version I snapped in Grantham (1st image), the original I've taken off Twitter. I did have my own pic of the original but couldn't find it just now.

 

[Starmill]

Because it's a lot more attention grabbing and attractive, I imagine.

Indeed, you prove my point. They are grabbing your attention with a statement that almost anyone would agree is not true, then immediately contradicting it. If they had put the accurate statement 'Some kids travel free!', or 'A small proportion of kids travel free' would it have been as attention grabbing?

The worst thing about this is that it's entirely within EMT's gift to offer free travel to accompanied children if they want to. They are choosing not to, but still trying to make themselves look good despite not bothering. That's why this advert is nonsense.

 

[USBT]

Gatwick Express has done its fair share of misleading advertising.

The most blatant? I don’t know when it ended, but back in the days of British Rail all the departure boards and announcements at Gatwick station showed the (cheaper) Network South East Victorias as terminating at Clapham Junction.

 

[jon0844]

Indeed, you prove my point. They are grabbing your attention with a statement that almost anyone would agree is not true, then immediately contradicting it. If they had put the accurate statement 'Some kids travel free!', or 'A small proportion of kids travel free' would it have been as attention grabbing?

The worst thing about this is that it's entirely within EMT's gift to offer free travel to accompanied children if they want to. They are choosing not to, but still trying to make themselves look good despite not bothering. That's why this advert is nonsense.

Why not just say under 5's free, which would do away with the need to clarify it?

I agree that the advert may not be illegal, but I do think it's misleading. Especially as you can't book a seat when you don't get a ticket, making it perhaps less useful for passengers than on a regular rail suburban or metro service.

FWIW, I think we now see more and more misleading ads because they don't technically lie and can be interpreted in different ways, or requiring you to read the small print. It seems to be tolerated, perhaps because the ASA has no teeth. At best it will ask, after some weeks or months, to not run the ad again. At that time the campaign will have likely ended anyway.

It's a little better in print, but not much, for much the same reasons.

 

[SteveP29]

Nobody has mentioned it yet, so I'll throw this into the ring.......
https://www.thetrainline.com/

 

[mallard]

The only operators who serve routes out of Leicester all have completely different markets, except in an extremely limited set of far-flung destinations.

Huh? The people who are most likely to travel with children are day-trippers and leisure travellers. They're quite likely to visit Birmingham on one occasion and London on another or to fly from Luton on one summer holiday and Stansted* on another. I wouldn't say they're "completely different markets" at all.

(* I'm aware that Leicester - Stansted can be quicker via London, but the cheaper "not via London" fare and direct train may well appeal to a family wanting to minimise hassle.)