Geeklawyer was perusing the Advertising Standards Authority web site, because he’s a bit of a saddo with nothing better to do, and tripped over the latest example of marketeers mangling the English language.
What do you think unlimited means?
Webster’s dictionary seems to believe it means:
“Unconfined; not restrained; unrestricted. Not limited; having no bounds; boundless; as, an unlimited expanse of ocean.”
An equally deluded WordNet reckons:
“having no limits in range or scope; without reservation or exception; that cannot be entirely consumed or used up;”
A number of ISPs, Vodaphone and the ASA reckon they have a better definition. Apparently “unlimited data downloads” means an unlimited amount of data can be downloaded, unless the amount exceeds 1Gigabyte a month. That is, unlimited but with limits? The ASA reckon that as long as there is an explicit warning that unlimited means limited then it is OK.
So why do companies like Vodaphone T-Mobile and various others use the word ‘Unlimited‘? Because they know full well that no-one actually reads small print, which is in any event written in a tiny font buried away where it’s not visible. All that the suckers remember are the large words:
“UNLIMITED DATA DOWNLOADS - download as much as you want forever!!!!!!”
By then of course they are locked into a 12/18 month contract.
The ASA says that its remit it is to ensure advertising which is “decent truthful and honest”. Deception or attempted deception, apparently, is fine. Just so long as it doesn’t succeed. Which is the function of the small print: it allows crooked advertisers like Vodaphone to say that they couldn’t have succeeded if the customer was paying careful attention; so it’s their fault.
The ASA really are crap: but then they are funded by advertisers who get what they pay for.
Hmm. Even if one’s contract is not void for misrepresentation, is it not void for mistake?
Frankly, I think that it is an issue of misrepresentation, notwithstanding nominal small print. I think that the tiny text of the small print doesn’t detract from the language of ‘absolute freedom’ of the main advertisement headline which is calculated to deceive.
I think you’ll find the issue of what the word ‘free’ means even more entertaining, although to be fair to the ASA they have been good at pointing out to companies - telcos mostly - that if something is an inclusive part of a line rental or call package then it is not free. Expect to see Talk Talk’s ‘Free Broadband for Life’ ads/claims get shot down anytime soon. Of course sadly the ASA doesn’t really have any teeth, so the advertisers know they can make such claims, accept the slap on the wrist, and still get their ads out there regardless.
On current form I’ll not hold my breath!
The ASA don’t have any formal powers but I’ve had at least one punter who was scared to death by the adverse rulings being published on their website. There was the suggestion that they even threatened to speak to his advertisers to get them to withdraw advertising from him. I believe he was wrong and they certainly never said it to me or I’d have slapped a tortious interference summons on their arse. But it does generate a degree of fear or embarassment.
Nonetheless the ASA is unarguably not as useful as a statutory body: which is why they were created.
[…] has said so much before and will presumably say so many times in the […]