Most Misleading Railway Advertising?

[bb21]

Huh? The people who are most likely to travel with children are day-trippers and leisure travellers. They're quite likely to visit Birmingham on one occasion and London on another or to fly from Luton on one summer holiday and Stansted* on another. I wouldn't say they're "completely different markets" at all.

(* I'm aware that Leicester - Stansted can be quicker via London, but the cheaper "not via London" fare and direct train may well appeal to a family wanting to minimise hassle.)

I don't mean completely different markets as in leisure vs commuting, or anything broad like that, but specific destinations.

A family wanting to visit London (for an event, or shopping, or visiting historic palaces, etc) is not going to want to go to Birmingham instead. Even if they had that choice, what matters will not be whether the child has to pay, but how much overall it would cost the group.

 

[Starmill]

Why not just say under 5's free, which would do away with the need to clarify it?

Exactly. Absolutely.

 

[J-Rod]

FWIW, I think we now see more and more misleading ads because they don't technically lie and can be interpreted in different ways, or requiring you to read the small print. It seems to be tolerated, perhaps because the ASA has no teeth. At best it will ask, after some weeks or months, to not run the ad again. At that time the campaign will have likely ended anyway.

As someone who has worked on a few ads (albeit radio ones) for a variety of TOCs, this is pretty much true (though the radio ad clearance people - the RACC - are a little more stringent with their requirements before things go to air). However, I once sat in a session with a TOC who hadn't done their homework and only realised that they might be pulled up on their script halfway through the session and panicked. They then rewrote the entire ad as 10 secs of ad copy and 20 secs of terms and conditions. No-one had a clue what they were advertising in the end..!!

 

[aye2beeviasea]

Any reasonable person would agree with me that that 'Kids travel free' and 'Children under 5 travel free' are mutually exclusive statements. Both cannot be true, so which is it? The poster does not make clear. I'm not saying it meets the criteria for misleading, but I am in no doubt at all that it meets my criteria for nonsense.

I've always suspected that I'm not a reasonable person, now I have proof at last

If anyone really does find this ad misleading, please send me a direct message; I have a lovely bridge in central London that I think you might be interested in buying

 

[eastdyke]

If anyone really does find this ad misleading, please send me a direct message; I have a lovely bridge in central London that I think you might be interested in buying

The advert is flawed, I have given the reason in posts 2 & 51 up-thread.
This will have to do as a direct message to you.

 

[Furrball]

This one from October last year. Missing a key word...

Hey, you know where isn't in London? Gatwick!
Glasgow to actual London £30 Each Way
Virgin Trains

 

[Jonny]

This one from October last year. Missing a key word...View attachment 44402

Greater... as in Greater London?

 

[185143]

This one from October last year. Missing a key word...View attachment 44402

FROM!

 

[Furrball]

FROM!

That is the one!

 

[Joe Paxton]

Gatwick Express has done its fair share of misleading advertising.

The most blatant? I don’t know when it ended, but back in the days of British Rail all the departure boards and announcements at Gatwick station showed the (cheaper) Network South East Victorias as terminating at Clapham Junction.

That's wrong.

The departure boards used to show NSE trains as terminating at Clapham Junction when all Victoria bound passengers were directed onto the Gatwick Express, and it didn't carry a premium fare.

This practice ended when GatEx was created as a shadow franchise and competition, including differential fares, started between GatEx and what had become Network SouthCentral (another shadow franchise) in 1993 or possibly 94.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Greater... as in Greater London?

Nope, Gatwick is around 9 miles as the crow flies from the nearest sliver of Greater London, Old Coulsdon.

Gatwick airport is in West Sussex, though pre-1975 it was in Surrey (the transfer was controversial at the time).

 

[SaveECRewards]

That's wrong.

The departure boards used to show NSE trains as terminating at Clapham Junction when all Victoria bound passengers were directed onto the Gatwick Express, and it didn't carry a premium fare.

This practice ended when GatEx was created as a shadow franchise and competition, including differential fares, started between GatEx and what had become Network SouthCentral (another shadow franchise) in 1993 or possibly 94.

More recently the Heathrow Connect used to show as terminating at Hayes on the boards at Paddington when it first launched but it hasn't done that for a long time. I know Paddington still misses off the last stop on stopping services to Reading if it's quicker to get a direct train but there's no price penalty for getting the fast train in this instance so that's fine.

 

[LLivery]

TfL's "all income reinvested". Bugs me every time, especially at LO stations. They know that many people believe London Overground isn't privatised and they're using that misbelief. As it's a concession, doesn't the income go to TfL, then on to Arriva Rail London? If that's the case, isn't that a lie?

Another one is "Contractless is the same price as Oyster". That's nonsense because you can't link railcards or other discounts.

 

[nickswift99]

More recently the Heathrow Connect used to show as terminating at Hayes on the boards at Paddington when it first launched but it hasn't done that for a long time. I know Paddington still misses off the last stop on stopping services to Reading if it's quicker to get a direct train but there's no price penalty for getting the fast train in this instance so that's fine.

There is a price penalty in the peak as current restrictions allow off peak tickets to be used on the stoppers when they're not valid on HST/IET services. The same is true for the Didcot stoppers that are advertised as Cholsey.

 

[whhistle]

As the manager of Leicester station, EMT should have an obligation to be neutral in their station advertisements (which would not, I emphasise, prohibit them from advertising unique benefits of their own services).

The manager who is employed by Stagecoach?
Does that mean the Manager of an Asda store should be neutral with the in-store advertisments and suggest I can buy milk at the local Tesco?

If this was reported, please post information here.
It would be interesting to see the outcome. If the ASA agree, that's great. If not, that's fine too. Just because certain individuals think it's mis-leading, doesn't mean it is.

 

[All Line Rover]

EMT manage the station under contract with the DfT.

 

[matthewmacleod]

TfL's "all income reinvested". Bugs me every time, especially at LO stations.

That's a meaningless complaint; the natural conclusion of that like of argument is that literally no income is ever reinvested, because it's all ultimately paid out to private individuals or companies.

In particular, with the Overground operating a concession rather than the franchise model used nationally, it's markedly different than the rest.

 

[2HAP]

Southeastern posters advertising Leeds Castle. Nearest station Bearsted. Hollingbourne is actually closer - there is a footpath from the station (the short section up the bank isn't strictly a public one) to the lower part of the village then road onwards.

They do that with the Hop Farm too. "Nearest station Paddock Wood". The Hop Farm is at Beltring, which has a station that is a lot nearer than Paddock Wood

 

[M28361M]

Depends on your definition of misleading, but Merseyrail last year had posters on their stations: "Go somewhere new for less than the price of a frothy coffee. Return travel from £1.95" (example from Twitter - not my photo)

The £1.95 return fares were for journeys like Liverpool Lime Street to Liverpool Central, Bootle Oriel Road to Bootle New Strand and Birkenhead Central to Hamilton Square - not exactly "going somewhere new"!

 

[185143]

Depends on your definition of misleading, but Merseyrail last year had posters on their stations: "Go somewhere new for less than the price of a frothy coffee. Return travel from £1.95" (example from Twitter - not my photo)

The £1.95 return fares were for journeys like Liverpool Lime Street to Liverpool Central, Bootle Oriel Road to Bootle New Strand and Birkenhead Central to Hamilton Square - not exactly "going somewhere new"!

Potentially it is...

If you've just got off the train at Lime Street having never been to Liverpool before, then James Street is somewhere new!

 

[skyhigh]

This one from October last year. Missing a key word...View attachment 44433

And another candidate from a Virgin East Coast web advert today:
View media item 3071(Text reads "WAKEFIELD to LONDON £37.00 each way")

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They do that with the Hop Farm too. "Nearest station Paddock Wood". The Hop Farm is at Beltring, which has a station that is a lot nearer than Paddock Wood

I just had a look round on Google Streetview; it looks to me as if there is nowhere to cross the A228 to get from Beltring Station to The Hop Farm - although it certainly wouldn't be too difficult to introduce a crossing at the roundabout. Another point about the A228 there is that it looks like the pavement is on the road side of the crash barriers instead of being behind them - I wonder who signed that off?!

 

[whhistle]

EMT manage the station under contract with the DfT.

Yeah, I read the post in a slightly different way... suggesting the [Station] Manager of Leicester "should remain neutral".

Even so, if you run McDonalds under a franchise, you ain't going to show advertisments like "buy burgers here!" <-- you'll promote your own product.

 

[Wivenswold]

National Express East Anglia made a big thing about "17 new trains" coming back in 2008. If 20 year old unrefurbished Silverlink units with threadbare carpet and knackered seat cushions are "new" then I'm a young man in rude health. Just one of many reasons that NXEA was so unpopular. Current AGA objectors seem to forget how bad it was back in the day.

 

[Essexman]

In terms of its impact, I would say Trainline's misleading adverts that at best imply that tickets are cheaper from them than elsewhere, when due to the booking fee they are more expensive. So many times people tell me they've bought tickets from Trainline and are convinced they have a price not available elsewhere.

 

[A Challenge]

In terms of its impact, I would say Trainline's misleading adverts that at best imply that tickets are cheaper from them than elsewhere, when due to the booking fee they are more expensive. So many times people tell me they've bought tickets from Trainline and are convinced they have a price not available elsewhere.

They do have a price not available elsewhere, but it is not available from anybody else as it is more expensive that anyone else!

 

[Scotty]

Nobody has mentioned it yet, so I'll throw this into the ring.......
https://www.thetrainline.com/

Somebody has mentioned them.

Most of the early Trainline adverts claiming they'll save you money compared with buying a ticket on the day at the station.
Well yes, but they were comparing Advance fares with non-advance, and you could buy the same advance fares at the station anyway...

 

[sheff1]

They will rule in favour of the advert most likely. Semantically the advert is correct.

I would not be so sure. "Book now" the advert says which implies, to me at least, that you can book a seat for a "kid" under 5 free of charge because "kids travel free". In fact, if you want to reserve a seat then a child fare must be paid and if you don't there is no need to book anything for the child.

 

[sheff1]

The most misleading railway advertisement I've EVER seen is the famous one of a dancing, smoking fisherman.

Underneath the picture it says "Skegness Is SO Bracing" and, in smaller type "It's Quicker By Rail!". Not sure which is the biggest lie.

Skegness is certainly bracing.

If that advert is still about I would agree that it is not "quicker by rail", but back when it was introduced it would definitely have been quicker by rail from most places served by GNR/LNER, taking into account the road vehicles of the day which would need to stop at regular intervals to let the engine cool down.