http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/3/Chiltern-Railways-Company-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_242147.aspxSo it seems that Virgin crying to the ASA over Chilterns recent advertising didn't work.
Ad
Two ads for Chiltern Trains:
a. A press ad that wrapped around the front and back pages of a newspaper stated "Don't be held to Branson. Anytime Return to London - Virgin: ^158, Chiltern: ^95" and "Travel to London for 40% less. Book today" on the front page. Further text included "Try Mainline today ^ spacious carriages and more tables" and "Chiltern Mainline is more punctual than Virgin Trains".
b. A leaflet distributed at an airport included text that stated "YOUR BETTER WAY TO LONDON. BUT DON'T JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT" and pictured speech bubbles below that featured text including "Chiltern Mainline is more punctual than Virgin Trains". Further text stated "WARWICK PARKWAY TO LONDON MARYLEBONE FROM ^6 ONE WAY ^ spacious carriages and more tables ^ Virgin Anytime ^158, Chiltern Anytime ^95**". Small print stated "**^95 'Anytime Return' fare applies on Chiltern Mainline trains from Warwick Parkway to London Marylebone, ^158 fare applies on Virgin Trains from Birmingham New Street and Birmingham International to London Euston".
Issue
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.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.13.33.333.73.9
Response
1. Chiltern Railways Company Ltd t/a Chiltern Trains said they had based the claim on the most accurate punctuality statistics available; the right-time punctuality statistics published by Network Rail, which were publically available. They provided a copy of the statistics. They said this was the most reliable data as it showed the exact 'right-time' punctuality. They said the only other data set available was the Public Performance Measure, which was used by the government and involved different definitions of punctuality being applied to different operators. In the case of Chiltern Trains 'punctual' was defined as no more than five minutes late, whereas for Virgin Trains 'punctual' was defined as no more than ten minutes late. They said the right-time data was therefore a better comparator as it was based on the exact time a train was due to arrive and was therefore comparing the same thing for both operators. They said that the right-time data was only published for operators overall, and was not broken down into individual routes. Neither Network Rail nor Virgin Trains published right-time performance data by route and so they were only able to make an overall comparison. They said the claim did not state that it was route specific and they did not believe it implied that was the case. The right-time statistics for 12 October 2013 showed Chiltern Trains had 87.9% punctuality over the past 12 months and Virgin Trains had 48% punctuality. They said they used the right-time data as it was the most accurate, but that Public Performance Measure statistics were available on a route-level basis and also supported their claim. They provided the data for the routes in question. They said that even though the definition of punctuality applied to them was stricter than Virgin Trains', they had higher percentage punctuality than Virgin over the past 12 months.
2. Chiltern Trains said the claim was based on the fact that passengers on their trains had a higher chance of getting a table than those travelling on a Virgin train. They said they used two types of trains on their Chiltern Mainline services. In standard class on their 'silver' train there were tables at 80% of seats, and their 'clubman' trains had tables at 52% of seats. They said that Virgin trains had tables at 35% of seats in standard class. They supplied seating diagrams of the three train types in question. They said they believed that consumers were only interested in the chances of their own seat having a table, and the fact that Virgin Trains had more seats overall, because they had more carriages, was not relevant.
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.
Action
No further action necessary.
Click on the map to explore geographics
