Mobile phone offer that didn't ring true
When Miss Z saw a TV ad for mobile ringtones from Jamster mobile club she duly texted the advertised number to receive one. Initially she was pleased with her new ringtone. However, her satisfaction was to be short lived. When she received her monthly statement from her mobile operator she was stunned to find her bill had escalated far above what she normally paid.
Upon closer inspection she noticed that she was being charged by Jamster on a weekly basis to the tune of £3. By ordering one ringtone she had unwittingly joined up to a subscription service. She was shocked and then angry. Miss Z was adamant that the advertisement had not made clear that she would be subscribing to a ringtone club. Angered by what she believed to be misleading advertising she contacted the ASA to lodge her complaint.
She was not alone. Other members of the public thought the ad was misleading too. Over 20 complained about two TV ads for Jamster Poly Club and Jamster mobile club as well as a press advertisement for Ringtoneking, a club which linked to a website where consumers could order various SMS based products. The ASA, having previously investigated similar complaints against this advertiser and found them in breach of the advertising code, was concerned to see the same approach being repeated again. It launched a formal investigation.
The advertisers argued they had made it perfectly clear in the TV ads that they were offering a subscription based service. Despite the fact that the voiceover invited consumers to order a single ringtone by stating, "get your favourite ringtone on your mobile now" and "go nuts with the Crazy Frog on your mobile now"; the advertisers believed the on screen text that listed the costs involved, made it sufficiently clear to customers they would be subscribed to a service costing £3 a week. They also believed the headings "Jamster Poly Club" and "Jamster Mobile Club" further emphasized that customers were entering a 'membership' agreement' with Jamster. Lastly they pointed out that it was established practice to offer products like ringtones or wallpapers on a subscription only basis.
Similarly, the advertisers asserted that their national press ad gave detailed information about subscription and pricing, with a large asterisk guiding customers to the small print. They also pointed out that they had added several details about the terms of their service into the body copy of their advertising. Asserting that they had amended their press advertising in response to two previous ASA investigations, the advertisers said they would, nonetheless, take immediate steps to minimise the chances of complaints arising in the future.
In reaching its decision, whilst noting that the advertisers believed the onscreen text clearly stated that a weekly fee would be charged for subscribing to the service, and that the voiceover did not take precedence over the visual information, the ASA found that the overall impression of the TV advertisements was misleading. It therefore upheld the complaints. The ASA judged that the voiceovers encouraged viewers to order a single ringtone rather than subscribing to a service and this message was not counterbalanced sufficiently by the onscreen text. Furthermore, the ASA believed that other ringtone providers offered the service on a non-subscription basis which underlined the importance of making clear the nature of the service being provided.
Although the ASA welcomed the advertiser's intention to take appropriate steps to avoid the problems occurring in future press ads, and that they had amended their advertising in light of previous investigations, the ad was still in breach of the Code. The ASA noted that the advertiser had provided written assurances in the past that the body copy of its advertising would make clear that a subscription service was being offered. As this was not the case the ad was also found to be misleading.
The ASA encourages consumers to always check the terms and conditions of any offer they see advertised.