MTN has been told off by the Advertising Standards Committee following complaints lodged against a major promotion and competition celebrating its 15th birthday. Hopefully the ruling will serve to deter unscrupulous cellular providers from taking consumers for a ride with ludicrously priced competitions. MTN, instead of celebrating 15 years in existence, just underscored how far it is removed from consumers, and how little they offer us to celebrate.
More details on the finding (provided by ASASA)
THE COMPLAINT
Six complaints were received. In essence they all complained that the advertisements state that it costs R7,50 to enter the competition but once the first SMS is sent at R7,50, one is required to answer a number of questions, each at R7,50, before one is entered for a chance to win one of the prizes. As if that was not all, one is lured into answering as many questions as possible in order to increase their chances of winning. The cost then is not R7,50 but after dozens, and even hundreds of SMS’s are sent, the cost is huge.
RULING OF THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Having viewed the TV commercial and been presented with the newspaper advertisements, the Committee is of the view that the overriding impression created by these advertisement is that by sending the first SMS, the entrant is entered to win one of the many pricey prizes. However, as admitted by the Respondent, the entrant had to answer subsequent questions, at an additional cost, before being entered in the competition for a chance to win.
A reasonable viewer of the TV and/or recipient of the promotional SMS would not be expected to scrutinise the terms and conditions on the website or mobi site in instances where the cost is already presented as R7,50 per SMS to be entered into the competition. For many such reasonable viewers, the MTN claws had already clasped them after they had made the first SMS.
The Respondent is no stranger to the ASA and its disciplinary committees. It knew, or ought to have known, that the competition constituted an advertisement and should have ensured that it complies with the Code. Instead, we were told that the competition was run along the lines of the Lotteries Act by an agency who is an expert on such matters, but not an advertising agency. This adds to the view that this was no more to celebrate 15 years of MTN’s existence than to generate a huge income by luring subscribers and other people into entering a lottery type competition. Ms Pinheiro, for the Respondent, disavowed any such motive but the facts that lead to this conclusion are very strong. By its own admission, entrants were only warned of the rising cost of the SMS’s after they had spent R195,00 (on the 26th SMS), but were not stopped at that stage because their chances of winning the main prizes was dependant on multiple entries.
The Committee finds that the Respondent’s advertisements were in breach of clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code in that:
* They directly stated that “SMS ‘15’ to 37187 (R7.50).” The promotional SMS can only be read to mean that R7,50 enters one into the competition and that for the first entry there is a free or automatic prize (of a ringtone).
* They implied that entrants would enter the competition at R7,50 per one SMS.
* They omitted to state that the cost would be accumulate, as multiple SMS’s are required before an entrant stands in line to win something.
* At best they were ambiguous about the cost of entering the competition.
Accordingly, the complaint is upheld.
In light of this, the complainants are afforded ten (10) working days to comment on whether or not sanctions in terms of Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide are appropriate, and if so, which sanctions. After this time, the respondent will be afforded an equal opportunity, after which the ASA will consider whether or not any sanctions are warranted.
More at ASASA
