The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled against T-Mobile's claim that "You wont find more minutes for £30", but accepts that the TV challenge "See if you can find more minutes for £30" is OK. T-Mobile's print campaign made the bold claim and was challenged by UK operator 3, which pointed out that its own £27 tariff offered …
Pretty Normal For Advertising
Ad agencies seem to think they can redefine the English language in order to justify their ridiculous claims. Anybody who believe advertiser's claims without doing any research deserves all they get. Or rather they deserve to get less for their money.
Since Brown wants us all to spend more money in order to rescue the economy and for best effect borrow money in order to spend it (there's responsible for you) I'm surprised he lets the ASA make rulings like this.
You pointed this out 6 months or so ago.
Ok for some
Yes the ASA who target only people they want to target.
For example, Virgin can still claim they offer an "unlimited" "fibre optic" service.
Both of which are complete lies and totally misleading but the ASA didnt care.
One rule for one, one rule for another. shambles. They must be getting paid off by
If you believe a single word of a TV advert, you deserve what you get.
Re: OK for some
Totally Agree with you but I am sure the unlimited will have the dreded asterisk on it. and fibre optic is true. It is not fibre optic to your door, but at some point it is fibre optic - then it goes to coaxial - then it goes to your 100MB router and hey presto. fibre optic broadband
@AC OK For Some
The ASA investigate COMPLAINTS about adverts. If nobody complains, they do not investigate. There's nothing partisan about what adverts get investigated, it takes a complaint from a rival or the public to get them going. See http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/short_guide/ which explains this very clearly.
No one believes ads anyway
I seem to recall a time when 17 out of 10 cats preferred one of two brands of cat food to any other
Surely this misses the point?
The bigger question that has to be asked here is who at T-Mo actually sanctioned this hackneyed, low-rent, banal creative idea as a supposedly mesmerising campaign? Is there no-one with a shred of creative zest at their ad agency?
This whole idea and hammed-up execution is every bit as woeful as those "had an accident that wasn't your fault?" ads on daytime TV. In fact, at least those raise a smile - even if inadvertently.