Ads watchdog to BT: We say your itsy bitsy, teeny weeny Ts&Cs too small for screeny

BT has had its ears boxed by the Advertising Standards Agency after one of its adverts with masses of small print was ruled "likely to mislead". The offending advert, televised in May of this year, contained two offers for broadband packages; one for an increased discount, and the other for a £100 reward card for signing up …

[Anonymous Coward]

I too

wondered about the illegibility of T&Cs on TV adverts.

I mean if HD is so good, then why are they using pixelated jpeg letters??? Is the type setter blind or just illiterate.

No doubt to obfuscate the finer details that otherwise you'd read and think "no way, that's a terrible offer".

[Roland6]

Re: I too

>wondered about the illegibility of T&Cs on TV adverts.

But what is the spec.?

My parents inlaw have a 43" HD TV - so they can read the subtitles/audio description from their seats on the sofa (2~3 metres from the screen). So even on this screen, the normal T&Cs text is too small for them to see.

Given many people have 24~32" HD screens, we can safely assume that for many people the T&Cs are illegible.

Perhaps those with 50-inch screens could enlighten us, as to firstly whether the T&Cs are readable - from a normal viewing position and secondly whether they are displayed on the screen for long enough for them to actually be read in their entirety.

What is even more irritating is the use of very small print and poor colour contrast on printed materials that even a digital camera has difficulty resolving.

[paulf]

I see what you did there

Headline: "Ads watchdog to BT: We say your itsy bitsy, teeny weeny Ts&Cs too small for screeny"

Does this indicate the start of a new punny headline template along the lines of "Super Cali goes balistic..."?

[Commswonk]

Re: I see what you did there

Does this indicate the start of a new punny headline template along the lines of "Super Cali goes balistic..."?

Only time will tell; I suspect that someone at Vulture Central can't get the name of one of Doncaster Council's new gritting vehicles out of his / her head: Gritsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Anti-Slip Machiney and is trying to better it... and not really succeeding.

[paulf]

Re: I see what you did there

@commswork I thought the same - seeing that in the news recently must have given ideas to a sub-ed at El Reg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I see what you did there

Please don't encourage them, it will only get worse!

[Adam 1]

Re: I see what you did there

> Please don't encourage them, it will only get worse!

You pessimist. Do you believe if we threw it all away things can only get better?

[jelabarre59]

Re: I see what you did there

Headline: "Ads watchdog to BT: We say your itsy bitsy, teeny weeny Ts&Cs too small for screeny"

Does this indicate the start of a new punny headline template along the lines of "Super Cali goes balistic..."?

I didn't even think the editors here were old enough to remember the original reference.

[Commswonk]

Re: I see what you did there

I didn't even think the editors here were old enough to remember the original reference.

Or many of the commentards, for that matter. I can remember it all too well. :(

[Oddlegs]

But they never have an issue with the terms 'unlimited' and 'up to'. Come on ASA

[AdamWill]

hate that too

Oh man, I hate those too. Outside of internet connections, I saw an absolutely magnificent example of the form in a shop window recently...

"ENTIRE STORE*

up to

75% OFF

* - exclusions apply"

(of course, the text in caps being gigantic, the other text being microscopically tiny). A more perfect example of an utterly meaningless ad it would be hard to find.

[Anonymous Coward]

A more perfect example of an utterly meaningless ad it would be hard to find...

How about:

Our best ever WiFi signal*

*compared to other large broadband companies.

WTF? BT adverts use English words, but are certainly not in English.

[billdehaan]

Re: hate that too

A more perfect example of an utterly meaningless ad it would be hard to find.

I'll seen your shop window ad, and raise you Rogers Home Internet.

I wish I had the flyer in front of me, but Rogers recently send out a Home Internet Package for $24.95 advertisement. The flyer lists the speed, and capacity, in large, red letters, along with the print of $24.95, with a nearly microscopic asterisk next to the price. The asterisk in turn was detailed at the bottom of the flyer in similarly tiny font, with the added benefit of being a light grey colour (on shiny white postcard stock background).

The most amusing part was that the explanatory text simply included the words "plus other charges", without explanation.

In other words, the $24.95 selling price was actually $24.95 plus some other, undefined number. Unlike your storefront example, where "up to" , and "exclusions apply" at least permit the possibility of some merchandise meeting the grandiose promise, the Rogers' advert actually is 100% meaningless. Not only can the customer not get the package for $24.95, he/she cannot even calculate what the actual price might even be, as there are no details as to the the "other charges" even are, never mind what they cost.

[Adam 1]

Nothing wrong with 'up to'.

No matter how hard you try, you won't find anything better than a 25% discount.

No matter what ungodly hour you wait up until and how close you are standing to our phone mast, we promise that your 4G connection will never give you a better speed than 50Mbps.

That's how I read such sentences anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Changes afoot

According to the BBC

Broadband firms will no longer be able to advertise their fast net services based on the speeds just a few customers get, from May next year.

BT should really concentrate on providing a decent phone/broadband service instead of pissing about competing with the likes of Sky providing tv channels.

The rule should be, 1 GBP for 1Mb speed per month, no line rental.

If the service drops, then you pay for what you get, retrospectively , then maybe there will be an incentive to provide a decent service.

[collinsl]

Re: Changes afoot

Right now I pay roughly £56/month for A&A service at 80Mb/s - I would NOT want that increased to £80 before considering the other services I purchase from them.

And think of the Virgin Media people on 300Mb/s!

[unwarranted triumphalism]

Wrong

Nothing was hidden. If you can't be bothered reading it then that's your fault.

[Daniel Hall]

Re: Wrong

Companies regularily try and hide things that would otherwise make a consumer walk away before purchasing.

I bet there are teams of people in each outfit tasked with only this...task

[ecofeco]

Re: Wrong

"Companies regularily try and hide things that would otherwise make a consumer walk away before purchasing."

Every day. Every damn day.

[Mike Shepherd]

Re: Wrong

You forgot the leopard.

[Mystic Megabyte]

Not just on TV

On every offer from BT that arrives by post there is always a load of small print. Right at the bottom it will have "More terms and conditions exist, see BT.com".

How can this be legal? Where is it hidden on their web-site? How often are these terms changed?

I have absolutely no faith in BT, they are bunch of scheming bastards.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Not just on TV

"Right at the bottom it will have "More terms and conditions exist, see BT.com".

And there are still people with not internet connection so are first timers. How they supposed to get to bt.com in a reasonable way? You can only be properly informed if you head off down to the library or internet cafe, learn how to use the internet then try to navigate the BT website to fine these T&Cs?

Are there any leopards on the BT website near the disused pages?

[Galahad the Chaste]

Sky do the same

Sky Trick

Get recommended by a friend and get £50/£75 voucher and pay installation.

OR

Sign up normally and and get free set-up.

Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sky do the same

I am amazed at what SLY get away with in advertising without getting slapped wrists.

OUR SUPERFAST BROADBAND IS FASTER THAT BT !

In the small print they compare their 80/20 package with BT's 55/10

A more dishonest bunch would be hard to find

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sky do the same

Then report them to the ASA, they may be slow but if enough of us complain they may get the message.

[FBee]

"Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polkadot Bikini" by Brian Hyland circa 1959

[Aqua Marina]

1990 - Timmy Mallett in Bombalurina

Musical genius’

[Adam 1]

it's also the guarantees

Our local express post service guarantees next day delivery with the usual asterisks talking about metro areas only. So what is the remedy if they fail to deliver? Why sir, you are entitled to a free replacement express post envelope to equal or lesser value.

It is also amazing what bits of your car are not considered by the manufacturer as covered if you need to claim on warranty. Furthermore, they don't have the balls to publish the number of years/kms that they claim is an acceptable life of a component. There is no way that you would buy a car from a manufacturer that publicly stated that their gearboxes were only good for 60,000K in a pre sales environment.

[Tromos]

Useless toothless ASA

Yet again an advertising campaign that finished months ago is banned from being repeated in the same form. BT (and the rest of them) just move on to the next crock of shit in the next campaign.

Ban them from all advertising for 3 months initially, doubling the length for each infraction thereafter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Useless toothless ASA

Maybe but all adverts are pre-screened by Clearcast who will allow or disallow an advert. These are based on previous rulings by the ASA. So each ASA judgement acts like case law for what is allowed.

So it is up to the ASA to judge what is not allowed before companies can't do it.

[LesB]

Unconditional

I once saw a print advert for tyres, which offered a two year unconditional warranty. Oh, sorry, that was a

..unconditional warranty.*

* Conditions apply

Oh dear...

[adam payne]

Who would trust BT to do the right thing by their customers?

[Nick Ryan]

Who would trust BT to do the right thing by their customers?

BT shareholders? Well, those that aren't also BT customers anyway...