Virgin Trains complaint against Chiltern adverts not upheld

[telstarbox]

The ASA have rejected VT’s complaints about two Chiltern ads which claimed that Chiltern offered cheaper tickets and better service than Virgin.

Virgin Trains challenged whether:

1. the claim "Chiltern Mainline is more punctual than Virgin Trains" in ads (a) and (b) was misleading, because it compared their overall punctuality statistics rather than the specific journey being promoted in the ad; and

2. the claim "spacious carriages and more tables" in ads (a) and (b) was misleading, because they believed Chiltern Trains has fewer tables in its longest train than Virgin has in its Pendolino train.

http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/3/Chiltern-Railways-Company-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_242147.aspx

 

[feline1]

If the Advertising Standards Agency is happy for consumers to be lied* to, why don't Virgin just come up with some misleading ads of their own?

 

[berneyarms]

If the Advertising Standards Agency is happy for consumers to be lied* to, why don't Virgin just come up with some misleading ads of their own?

Hardly "lied" as the ruling shows:

Assessment


1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that because the claim "Chiltern Mainline is more punctual than Virgin Trains" specifically referred to the Chiltern Mainline route, rather than Chiltern railways in general, consumers would expect the claim to be based on punctuality statistics for their Mainline route. Although we understood that Chiltern Trains had intended the claim to be based on the right-time punctuality statistics published by Network Rail, which were not broken down by route, route specific Public Performance Measure punctuality data was available. This data showed that over the past 12 months Chiltern Trains' Mainline route had punctuality of 95.5%, compared to 84.9% punctuality of Virgin Trains' London to West Midlands route. We noted that the measure of 'punctuality' in this data was not identical, but that the criterion of punctuality for Chiltern Trains was more stringent than that for Virgin Trains. We therefore concluded that the claim "Chiltern Mainline is more punctual than Virgin Trains" had been substantiated and was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) but did not find them in breach.

2. Not upheld

We acknowledged that Virgin's trains had a greater number of tables overall, because of their greater number of carriages. However, we considered that consumers would understand the claim as a reference to the percentage of seats that had tables, as it was this that would determine their individual chance of obtaining a seat with a table rather than the overall number of tables. Chiltern Trains had demonstrated that a greater percentage of seats on their trains had tables than on Virgin's trains. We therefore concluded that the claim "spacious carriages and more tables" had been substantiated and was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), but did not find them in breach.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Rightly so. No argument with their rulings!

 

[feline1]

We acknowledged that Virgin's trains had a greater number of tables overall, because of their greater number of carriages. However, we considered that consumers would understand the claim as a reference to the percentage of seats that had tables, as it was this that would determine their individual chance of obtaining a seat with a table rather than the overall number of tables.

Right. So if 200 passengers get on a 10 carriage Virgin train containing 15 tables per carriage (total tables: 150),
and another set of 200 passengers get on a 5 carriage Chiltern train containing 20 tables per carriage (total tables: 100)
which set of passengers has the most chance of getting a table?

 

[transmanche]

Right. So if 200 passengers get on a 10 carriage Virgin train containing 15 tables per carriage (total tables: 150),
and another set of 200 passengers get on a 5 carriage Chiltern train containing 20 tables per carriage (total tables: 100)
which set of passengers has the most chance of getting a table?

However, in the real world, that's not what happens. And the ASA ruling was based on what happens in the real world.

 

[talltim]

Right. So if 200 passengers get on a 10 carriage Virgin train containing 15 tables per carriage (total tables: 150),
and another set of 200 passengers get on a 5 carriage Chiltern train containing 20 tables per carriage (total tables: 100)
which set of passengers has the most chance of getting a table?

With those figures, they all have exactly the same chance of getting a table seat. 200 people / 4 people per table = only 50 tables required.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

Right. So if 200 passengers get on a 10 carriage Virgin train containing 15 tables per carriage (total tables: 150),
and another set of 200 passengers get on a 5 carriage Chiltern train containing 20 tables per carriage (total tables: 100)
which set of passengers has the most chance of getting a table?

According to the ASA code adverts have to be "capable of objective substantiation", not pedantically literal.

If you're going to be pedantic, its higher chance or greater chance, most chance is wrong on two counts - style and using a superlative instead of a comparative.

 

[455driver]

However, in the real world, that's not what happens. And the ASA ruling was based on what happens in the real world.

Dont bring the real world into threads like this!

 

[feline1]

With those figures, they all have exactly the same chance of getting a table seat. 200 people / 4 people per table = only 50 tables required.

I have to SHARE my table with three strangers now?? /HORROR?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Right. So if 200 passengers get on a 10 carriage Virgin train containing 15 tables per carriage (total tables: 150),
and another set of 200 passengers get on a 5 carriage Chiltern train containing 20 tables per carriage (total tables: 100)
which set of passengers has the most chance of getting a table?

I'm not a statistician, but I'd say everyone gets a table.

[each table will have four seats around it (in standard class) which means 100 tables would provide 400 table seats]

Being slightly more serious, the odds of any one passenger getting a table seat are probably very similar despite the differing quantities of seats available. Variable factors might include, but would not be limited to, where the passengers wait on the platform, which coach everyone tries to squeeze into and whether the person in front has more luggage than your typical jumbo jet......

 

[talltim]

I have to SHARE my table with three strangers now?? /HORROR?

Don't you have any friends to take with you?

 

[feline1]

If you're going to be pedantic, its higher chance or greater chance, most chance is wrong on two counts - style and using a superlative instead of a comparative.

True - my bad.
Also the term 'Virgin' here is probably not strictly accurate either
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't you have any friends to take with you?

Actually I just got my new 'Two Together' railcard yesterday.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not a statistician, but I'd say everyone gets a table.

[each table will have four seats around it (in standard class) which means 100 tables would provide 400 table seats]

Being slightly more serious, the odds of any one passenger getting a table seat are probably very similar despite the differing quantities of seats available. Variable factors might include, but would not be limited to, where the passengers wait on the platform, which coach everyone tries to squeeze into and whether the person in front has more luggage than your typical jumbo jet......

Quite - so it would have been more accurate if the ASA had just made Virgin and Chiltern replace their adverts with a big poster saying "MEH"

 

[Cherry_Picker]

With those figures, they all have exactly the same chance of getting a table seat. 200 people / 4 people per table = only 50 tables required.

This might just be the best post I've ever read on the forum. It genuinely made me laugh out loud, well done sir.

 

[FQ]

The ASA have rejected VT’s complaints about two Chiltern ads which claimed that Chiltern offered cheaper tickets and better service than Virgin.


http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/3/Chiltern-Railways-Company-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_242147.aspx

Chiltern rail ARE much bette than Virgin despite what Branson says.

 

[Bantamzen]

Eeeh, I don't know. Is this all some commuters have to worry about, getting a table? Maybe rather than getting TPE's 170s next year, perhaps we should sent some ex-Merseyrail 142s down for them to play with.....

(This is of course a joke, or is it..... )

 

[talltim]

How many tables can you get in a 142? Perhaps some nice 6 person tables for larger parties

 

[hairyhandedfool]

How many tables can you get in a 142? Perhaps some nice 6 person tables for larger parties

Depends how many seats you take out....

 

[junglejames]

Right. So if 200 passengers get on a 10 carriage Virgin train containing 15 tables per carriage (total tables: 150),
and another set of 200 passengers get on a 5 carriage Chiltern train containing 20 tables per carriage (total tables: 100)
which set of passengers has the most chance of getting a table?

Ignoring your own figures of 200 passengers per train.
Theres a reason Chiltern services have less carriages. Its because they carry less passengers. Therefore, assuming the number of passengers per carriage (on average) is the same, then there is a greater chance of a table with Chiltern. Im assuming the ASA have looked quite deeply into it.

Admittedly Chilterns wording is a bit hit and miss in this instance, and perhaps they should have included the words "more tables per carriage" just to be on the safe side, but because Chiltern are so much better, we will let the off just this once

 

[Darren R]

If the Advertising Standards Agency is happy for consumers to be lied* to, why don't Virgin just come up with some misleading ads of their own?

Virgin Media are waaaay ahead of you on that one - the ASA have ruled their advertising was misleading 21 times in the past two years. Perhaps the Sainted Branson should look at getting his own house in order first.

 

[ECML180]

Not his own house! His name maybe but Virgin Media is actually owned by NTL:Telewest.

 

[transmanche]

Virgin Media are waaaay ahead of you on that one - the ASA have ruled their advertising was misleading 21 times in the past two years. Perhaps the Sainted Branson should look at getting his own house in order first.

Richard Branson doesn't own Virgin Media.

 

[Darren R]

He's more than happy to appear in their adverts though - shrinking violet that he is!

 

[Deerfold]

Richard Branson doesn't own Virgin Media.

Presumably he's quite happy to license the name to them though.

 

[NSEFAN]

Presumably he's quite happy to license the name to them though.

It's somewhat analogous to the fact that Virgin Trains is actually 49% owned by Stagecoach.

 

[bramling]

The ASA have rejected VT’s complaints about two Chiltern ads which claimed that Chiltern offered cheaper tickets and better service than Virgin.


http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/3/Chiltern-Railways-Company-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_242147.aspx

One has to wonder how much 'competition' has ever actually benefited passengers.

Travelling on a crush-loaded London Midland Euston to Crewe train earlier this week, I couldn't help noticing most passengers were travelling to destinations they could have reached quicker and more comfortably using Virgin Trains. Likewise the London - Birmingham route now seems stuffed full of 4-car London Midland trains, with 11-car Pendolinos running fairly empty on occasions. On my local route, I see large numbers of people travelling from Peterborough to London using FCC.

I don't see who really benefits from all this. In the FCC example, those using the cheaper tickets suffer an extended journey time and less comfortable trains, and worse it means passengers boarding at intermediate stations suffer overcrowding because their train has been filled with people effective abstracted from another service. In the London Midland example whilst it may be good to travel London to Stoke on an £11 advance, the penalty is a considerably longer and less comfortable journey, now seemingly on a crush-loaded train. Again, users at the intermediate stations have to endure a crowded train when their station has no alternative service (e.g. Atherstone).

I can't comprehend why anyone would use London Midland for a Birmingham to London journey and get lumbered with a 350/2, stopping at so many places including probably going via Northampton, and having to endure a crowded journey on a 4-car train. Filling a busy main line with loads of 4-car trains is not a good use of line capacity either.

The same applies with Chiltern. Whilst there is no doubt Chiltern offers a quality service, even after the Mainline works it is still a longer journey, and those at intermediate locations (e.g. Warwick, Leamington Spa, Banbury) who have no other alternative get lumbered with a train carrying Birmingham commuters.

I would prefer to see a pricing structure which always gives operators the incentive to offer passengers the fastest journey option.

 

[43167]

I must say it did make me chuckle when I was Birmingham International last friday and saw all the Chiltern ads everywhere.

Last friday was one of the rare occasions where I used VT as they were offering reasonable fares on a couple of the early services. I was booked on the 0600 off international and my allocated seat was one with no window, but luckly I was able to find an unreserved seat without a window.

On the way back I booked on the 1903 loco-hauled and it was a much better ride. The pendos were a poor replacement for the Mark 3's which had lots of live left in them.

 

[feline1]

Virgin Media are waaaay ahead of you on that one - the ASA have ruled their advertising was misleading 21 times in the past two years. Perhaps the Sainted Branson should look at getting his own house in order first.

Well I'll go the the foot of our stairs! But you seem to be implying I can get on a train for the Information Superhighway... #broadband

 

[Dave1987]

Virgin have made a very big deal about their Pendilinos with advertising campaigns proudly showing how fast they are etc which is true. But unsurprisingly none of the adverts claim that you will travel in spacious comfortable train, mainly because you wont. Chiltern have clearly got one up on Virgin on this by being cheaper and having a far better ambiance on board both their 168's and silver sets. I suppose its the choice between a faster journey time and a cheaper ticket with a more spacious train.

 

[feline1]

One has to wonder how much 'competition' has ever actually benefited passengers.
.

It pretty much NEVER benefits passengers, as all the competing operators still have to make a profit off them.
Plus, usually just means that, despite the illusion of "choice", passengers have less trains they can get, as their tickets aren't valid on other TOCs trains. (i.e. the "choice" is usually between slight discounts and much less frequency & flexibility. Which is not quite as much fun as choosing your favourite milkshake...)