Vodacom has undertaken to clarify that it is the number one network in relation to customer numbers.
Mobile network operators Vodacom and MTN are, once again, at odds over store-front advertising campaigns.
This, after MTN dragged Vodacom to the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), arguing its “South Africa’s #1 Network” displays at OR Tambo and Cape Town airports are misleading.
MTN contended the slogan suggested objective superiority without context or disclaimer, violating the advertising code by potentially exploiting consumer credulity and creating a dishonest impression.
In terms of subscribers in South Africa, Vodacom leads MTN. Vodacom submitted to the ARB that the intention was to communicate the fact that it is the number one network in relation to customer numbers or market share.
It claimed that this fact is established and known to MTN, as well as other competitors, such as Cell C and Telkom.
Vodacom pointed out that it has nearly 55 million subscribers, compared to MTN’s nearly 40 million, Telkom Mobile’s nearly 24 million and Cell C’s 7.5 million.
It stated it has already begun removing the unqualified advertising and will ensure all examples are replaced with advertising that clarifies the context of the claim.
MTN argued that Vodacom’s advertising breached several provisions of the Code of Advertising Practice, specifically citing Clause 2 of Section II (honesty), Clause 4.1 of Section II (substantiation), Clause 4.2.1 of Section II (misleading claims), and Clause 15 of Section III (cellular telephones and mobile networks).
According to the advertising watchdog, the crux of MTN’s concern appears to be the absence of any context in relation to Vodacom’s invitation to customers to “Get connected on South Africa’s #1 Network”.
The complainant noted this is vague and open to interpretation, likely misleading some customers about the nature and scope of the claimed superiority.
The board notes that Vodacom appears to acknowledge that the claim requires qualification and has undertaken to replace all executions with one that reads: “Get connected on South Africa’s #1 Network Based on Customer Size.”
Clause 8.5 of the procedural guide allows the directorate to accept voluntary undertakings to amend or withdraw disputed advertising.
Traditionally, the board adds, this is done when the undertaking addresses the concerns raised, and is not seen as an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the code, existing rulings, or the possibility of additional sanctions for repeat offences.
The board notes the advertiser’s proposed amendment appears to contextualise the claim in terms of customer base.
“This seems to address the complainant’s concerns, and gives consumers additional clarity about the scope of the claimed superiority,” it says.
“Given that the amended claim appears to provide context (which was the main concern raised by the complainant), the directorate is willing to accept the amendment as an adequate resolution to this complaint.
“The directorate, therefore, accepts the advertiser’s undertaking to remove the uncontextualised claim ‘Get connected on South Africa’s #1 Network’ and replace it with one that provides additional context as stated above. This undertaking is accepted on condition that the claim that gave rise to this dispute is removed with immediate effect, and within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide,” it concludes.
