Railway - Misleading Advertisting

[Butts]

Again - if you're not already "in the know" regarding tickets you need to be made aware of the fact that Advance fares are much more restrictive than walk-ons. Because the advert does not tell you this, and because the booking process does not distinguish between the two and even if you choose a walk-on fare you have to go through the same process of choosing a train and seat, it is easy to assume Advance fares are the same as walk-on fares bought on the day, just cheaper. Knowing this is not enough. This information needs to be obvious to anyone, otherwise people will buy the wrong tickets and, as I said, either they assume walk-on fares are still train-specific, or get caught out on Advance tickets because they didn't know the restrictions.
The restrictions on Advance tickets is the main reason why I almost never buy Advance!

Forget the restrictions if you were travelling 1St Class regularly between Edinburgh and Birmingham this is the only ticket to buy.

To most leisure travellers price is more important than restrictions

 

[Robinson]

Forget the restrictions if you were travelling 1St Class regularly between Edinburgh and Birmingham this is the only ticket to buy.

Only time I've gone first class since I was 11 years old was the Caledonian Sleeper from Euston to Fort William.

To most leisure travellers price is more important than restrictions .

They still need to be made aware, in no uncertain terms, that an Advance fare is very different to a walk-on in that it is only valid on the specific train booked.

 

[Butts]

Only time I've gone first class since I was 11 years old was the Caledonian Sleeper from Euston to Fort William.



They still need to be made aware, in no uncertain terms, that an Advance fare is very different to a walk-on in that it is only valid on the specific train booked.

Caveat Emptor

 

[junglejames]

Go watch the advert again @ 0:15 seconds. Its there alright. They cannot have everything plastered all over the screen because it wont ever shown what the advert is for - and will cost too much as over the 20-30 second clip that most ads are.

They can save you money - they tell you against which ticket. To deny it is just staggering.

As I have said before. The small print is as good as not meaning anything. Buy on day tickets? Dont exist. Its off peak or anytime tickets, brought at the station.

The small print should say: 'Comparing Advance tickets against off peak or Anytime tickets bought at the station. Check all restrictions before buying.'

Ive seen small print say more than that before.

I still wont like the advert, but if that was added in small print, I couldnt really argue with it. Its then up to everybody else to not fall for the advert. It will still be misleading to some, but the small print fully covers their backside.

 

[RichardJ]

I still wont like the advert, but if that was added in small print, I couldnt really argue with it. Its then up to everybody else to not fall for the advert. It will still be misleading to some, but the small print fully covers their backside.

In fact, the ASA have today found that the advert is misleading (in part): http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/9/Trainline,-d-,com-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_158295.aspx. As you said earlier, the small print on the TV advert itself just says 'Advance fares and selected routes only'; the extra caption 'Savings on Advance fares vs purchase on the day' is actually being overlaid by Youtube, presumably as a rushed change in response to the ASA's findings:

We noted that the qualifying text, which stated “Advance fares and selected routes only. Subject to availability”, did not appear on screen at the same time as the savings claims. Furthermore, we considered that some viewers may understand “Advance fares and selected routes only” to mean that thetrainline.com had compared their Advance tickets against Advance tickets available from other outlets.

We considered that the information that explained the basis of the savings claims was not sufficiently clear and that some viewers would therefore infer that, when compared with the same type of ticket available from other outlets, thetrainline.com were 43% cheaper on average and could be cheaper until 6pm on the day before travel. We considered that the evidence provided did not substantiate the implied claims and we concluded the ad was misleading.

On these points the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation), 3.10 (Qualification) and 3.12 (Exaggeration).

 

[Butts]

In fact, the ASA have today found that the advert is misleading (in part): http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/9/Trainline,-d-,com-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_158295.aspx. As you said earlier, the small print on the TV advert itself just says 'Advance fares and selected routes only'; the extra caption 'Savings on Advance fares vs purchase on the day' is actually being overlaid by Youtube, presumably as a rushed change in response to the ASA's findings:

Well I never - how do these washing powder adverts get away with it ?

 

[IanXC]

For me its the difference between "buy in advance" and "buy an Advance ticket". Wouldn't make any real difference to the advert, but would show actually what is meant!

I wonder if the booking fee business will be resolved with the budget airlines advertising?

 

[junglejames]

Well, I do believe a certain person on here, mentioning no names (Clip!!), wanted me to tell them how i got on with the ASA.

Well, its unlikely if this had much, if anything, to do with my complaint, but just to point out. The only reason the complaints have been upheld, is because of the exact thing I was arguing against yesterday.
The TV advert does not include the subtitles found on the youtube ad. These subtitles are bad enough, but the TV ad itself is even worse. Therefore the advert is very misleading. It does not tell you how you get these savings, or the fact that they are comparing two very different products.
Even the ASA have said it is possible some people will think they are comparing advance tickets bought at thetrainline against advance tickets bought at the station.

So, whilst it may not have been down to my complaint, the ASA have agreed with everything I said.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In fact, the ASA have today found that the advert is misleading (in part): http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/9/Trainline,-d-,com-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_158295.aspx. As you said earlier, the small print on the TV advert itself just says 'Advance fares and selected routes only'; the extra caption 'Savings on Advance fares vs purchase on the day' is actually being overlaid by Youtube, presumably as a rushed change in response to the ASA's findings:

I hope that youtube overdub isnt thetrainlines attempt to comply, because even that is not good enough. As I have mentioned, it doesnt actually mention any ticket types, or where they are bought. It should also say 'Check all conditions' at the end.
If I see no significant improvement, expect another complaint to the ASA.

 

[richw]

the same as advertised holidays do not say that they include flight taxes and such like when advertised on the telly too. But yet they still do so.

Yes they do, a ruling on this was made a couple of years ago, where the from price must include compulsary taxes. They now charge extra for hold baggage, in flight food etc which you used to get automatically for free. This doesnt have to be in the from pric as its optional extras you dont have to use,

 

[Phil6219]

Didn't GEx have to withdraw an advert claiming they were the fastest service from Gatwick to London when FCC to London Bridge is in fact quicker, making a joke out of GEx?

Yep only a few months ago too I think.

As for Tottenham being London, does anyone else here think "Ryanair"? You know the airline which advertises flights to a City and yet it's an airport miles and miles away which is technically classed as that city, heck there was one in Germany where on the bus to the city (not included in price) the bus actually went past the "proper" airport...

To be honest I would consider Tottenham part of London however I would not consider it a major rail interchange nor terminus or transport hub.

Phil

 

[IanXC]

Yep only a few months ago too I think.

As for Tottenham being London, does anyone else here think "Ryanair"? You know the airline which advertises flights to a City and yet it's an airport miles and miles away which is technically classed as that city, heck there was one in Germany where on the bus to the city (not included in price) the bus actually went past the "proper" airport...

To be honest I would consider Tottenham part of London however I would not consider it a major rail interchange nor terminus or transport hub.

Phil

Wasn't there a Ryanair route that actually took you to an airport in another country to your destination? Maybe Slovenia or somewhere near there?

 

[Phil6219]

/\

Yes they have done that in the past, I can't think exactly where it was right now. Though they have in the past diverted a Lanzarote bound flight to Fuerteventura, dumped the passengers then flown empty to Lanzerote to pick up another load and head home...

To be fair they diverted due to weather conditions but there is no excuse for leaving pax on one island to then fly empty to the original anyway...

Then again nothing surprises me with regards to that airline, I can honestly say I am proud to have served with better airlines.

Phil

 

[tbtc]

Wasn't there a Ryanair route that actually took you to an airport in another country to your destination? Maybe Slovenia or somewhere near there?

Ryanair's website included Copenhagen as one of its destinations, yet the flight actually landed at Malmo in Sweden. The airline justified its inclusion saying it was a 45-minute bus ride there

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-public-over-flight-destinations-653809.html

I think they've done the same in Austria too. Bet the "45 minute bus ride" wasn't part of the fare though...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think it's important to note that the ASA judged that the failure to mention the booking fee was fair as the the calculations that arrived at the figures included the booking fee.

The advert cannot be broadcast again in its current form.

 

[junglejames]

I think it's important to note that the ASA judged that the failure to mention the booking fee was fair as the the calculations that arrived at the figures included the booking fee.
QUOTE]

As much as it stinks, there is nothing that the ASA can do regarding the booking fee. As long as Thetrainline just say you can make savings over getting off peak tickets at the station (and explain how), then nowt can be done. Its if Thetrainline start trying to say they are the cheapest, or joint cheapest. Then something can be done. I think!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-public-over-flight-destinations-653809.html

I think they've done the same in Austria too. Bet the "45 minute bus ride" wasn't part of the fare though...

I wondered if it was between Copenhagen and Malmo.
I have flown into Copenhagen before, when my final destination was Malmo. Its only 20mins away by train, and probably the best way of getting to Malmo. But that was with a decent airline which told you they were going to Copenhagen, and really did go to Copenhagen.
Saying you fly to Copenhagen when actually you are in a totally different city and country, is just a **** take.

Saying that, whilst they are in the same country, their claims of flying to Oslo are even worse. They fly into Sandefjord. The airport is even called Sandefjord.
It takes about 90mins to 2hrs to get into Oslo.

 

[jon0844]

Copenhagen is definitely the best way to get to Malmo, but now that the Danes are reportedly reimposing border controls (which a lot of people aren't happy about!) I wonder if that's going to cause any problems? Now you'll be entering one country but then leaving to enter another (think about people who need a visa, if they're not EU/native citizens). I doubt immigration will treat you the same as being in transit within an airport, given you could leave to the train station and never go to Sweden.

Anyway, airlines must include all fees and the EU has been clamping down hard (and will hopefully continue to do so) - such that Ryanair play the trick of having a specific prepaid card (that changes) to allow for there to be no surcharge for paying by card. Otherwise, they'd have to include the £6 per person/per flight fee in the headline figure.

Now, what method of payment/ticket collection allows you to avoid the booking fee with thetrainline? If you have to pay the booking fee every time, I fail to see why the EU doesn't make it compulsory to include that in ALL of the advertised ticket prices and comparisons. It would surely make thetrainline more expensive than other people on EVERY SINGLE ticket, given some have no fees for booking, postage or collecting from a station.

At the very least, it might make thetrainline drop the booking fee, which could actually make them a company I could consider using. To be honest, I don't know why they didn't carry on with the sheep advertising as you had to be a sheep to use them.

 

[CheekyBandit]

If you use their buses the answer is "a numb bum!"

You mean if when one of their buses actually turns up ...