Gatwick Express advertising ruled 'misleading'

[Starmill]

Gatwick Express 30-minute ad claims ruled 'misleading' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-45023993

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the 30-minute claim was not substantiated and was "misleading".

Gatwick Express must no longer claim it runs "non-stop to Victoria Station in half an hour" unless it manages it most of the time, a regulator has ruled.

Unsurprisingly, GX's adverts that state they run "non-stop to Victoria Station in half an hour" have been ruled misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) because Govia Thameslink Railway is frequently not able to achieve this timing.

The ASA have decided that as a significant proportion of the delays are within GTR's control, and that only in 'exceptional circumstances' should trains take longer than 30 minutes.

I'm sure this is not the first time that there has been advertising ruled on as misleading in relation to this route, and indeed other 'Airport Express' routes in London. It would seem that the industry is having great difficulty in learning that consistently sub-par performance has unpredictable negative consequences.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting. So how are they selling Gatwick Express now, if they can’t say it takes 30 minutes?

 

[nickswift99]

Interesting. So how are they selling Gatwick Express now, if they can’t say it takes 30 minutes?

"Non stop trains from London Victoria to Gatwick Airport. Up to 4 times an hour" is the strapline on their website here https://www.gatwickexpress.com/

 

[Taunton]

About time too. The claim about "every 15 minutes" in the same advertisment is also regularly a fiction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-45023993

The TOCs need to understand that claims about track defects, etc, "not being within their control" are not acceptable out in the real world. The operator is responsible for pulling together all their suppliers, whether it's their train builder, their fuel supplier, staff provision, or their infrastructure provider. The passenger's contract is with the train operator to get it all in place. If they can't do this reliably, don't advertise they can.

The Gatwick Express quoted excuse that "only one third of the delay minutes were within our control" is just another example of the industry not getting it.

 

[Bantamzen]

Interesting. So how are they selling Gatwick Express now, if they can’t say it takes 30 minutes?

"We get there in 30 minutes 80% or more of the time"?? Or in the case of yesterday "We get there in 30 mins most of the time, save some services in the late peak"?? Or perhaps just "We can get there in around 30 minutes"?

Quite honestly, and I will probably stand alone in this but if the timings are set at 30 minutes, and this can be achieved, then what is the problem in advertising that? If they don't make it, then if the customer is delayed sufficiently to affect their flight plans then they should make representation to GatEx to seek the relevant delay repay and/or compensation. But most people, most sensible people that is, don't plan to land at the airports at the last minute. Most flights these days require passengers to commence checking in at 2 hours before the flights, some 3. So the GatEx running a few minutes late isn't going to mislead people into not making their flights. But the bottom line is generally speaking you can get from Waterloo to Gatwick in 30 minutes. Or am I missing something?

What next, the ASA not allowing TOCs to advertise any timetables in case they run late sometimes? Or perhaps forcing TOCs into putting so much padding into them that transit times significantly increase, with services standing at various timing points annoying customers who just want to get to their destination? Quite honestly, in my opinion, the ASA are rapidly becoming like some parochial parish council, niggling over fine details and not dealing with the wider issues (and my family has some involvement in such councils, so I have first hand experience in them!!). Jobs for the boys and girls springs to mind....

 

[nickswift99]

"We get there in 30 minutes 80% or more of the time"?? Or in the case of yesterday "We get there in 30 mins most of the time, save some services in the late peak"?? Or perhaps just "We can get there in around 30 minutes"?

Quite honestly, and I will probably stand alone in this but if the timings are set at 30 minutes, and this can be achieved, then what is the problem in advertising that? If they don't make it, then if the customer is delayed sufficiently to affect their flight plans then they should make representation to GatEx to seek the relevant delay repay and/or compensation. But most people, most sensible people that is, don't plan to land at the airports at the last minute. Most flights these days require passengers to commence checking in at 2 hours before the flights, some 3. So the GatEx running a few minutes late isn't going to mislead people into not making their flights. But the bottom line is generally speaking you can get from Waterloo to Gatwick in 30 minutes. Or am I missing something?

What next, the ASA not allowing TOCs to advertise any timetables in case they run late sometimes? Or perhaps forcing TOCs into putting so much padding into them that transit times significantly increase, with services standing at various timing points annoying customers who just want to get to their destination? Quite honestly, in my opinion, the ASA are rapidly becoming like some parochial parish council, niggling over fine details and not dealing with the wider issues (and my family has some involvement in such councils, so I have first hand experience in them!!). Jobs for the boys and girls springs to mind....

Passengers were being misled into thinking that GatEx is the fastest and most reliable rail option for getting to the airport. This means that they pay more than other fares that may be available by taking other services from Victoria or other London stations (Discussions about the validity of the fares are probably off-topic).

 

[jayah]

"We get there in 30 minutes 80% or more of the time"?? Or in the case of yesterday "We get there in 30 mins most of the time, save some services in the late peak"?? Or perhaps just "We can get there in around 30 minutes"?

Quite honestly, and I will probably stand alone in this but if the timings are set at 30 minutes, and this can be achieved, then what is the problem in advertising that? If they don't make it, then if the customer is delayed sufficiently to affect their flight plans then they should make representation to GatEx to seek the relevant delay repay and/or compensation. But most people, most sensible people that is, don't plan to land at the airports at the last minute. Most flights these days require passengers to commence checking in at 2 hours before the flights, some 3. So the GatEx running a few minutes late isn't going to mislead people into not making their flights. But the bottom line is generally speaking you can get from Waterloo to Gatwick in 30 minutes. Or am I missing something?

What next, the ASA not allowing TOCs to advertise any timetables in case they run late sometimes? Or perhaps forcing TOCs into putting so much padding into them that transit times significantly increase, with services standing at various timing points annoying customers who just want to get to their destination? Quite honestly, in my opinion, the ASA are rapidly becoming like some parochial parish council, niggling over fine details and not dealing with the wider issues (and my family has some involvement in such councils, so I have first hand experience in them!!). Jobs for the boys and girls springs to mind....

The problem is that 80% is their PPM probably 0-5mins. The timetable is so close to 30min that achieving PPM will often still mean taking longer than 30min.

Looking at the last 12 weeks most services are <50% of the time making the 0-2min measure meaning the others failed to make it in 30mins.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's interesting about this is that I doubt easyJet would be criticised for poor operations at Luton Airport, nor BA at Heathrow, unless they were the airline's fault?

 

[DarloRich]

Gatwick Express 30-minute ad claims ruled 'misleading'

the whole operation is (deliberately?) confusing!

About time too. The claim about "every 15 minutes" in the same advertisment is also regularly a fiction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-45023993

The TOCs need to understand that claims about track defects, etc, "not being within their control" are not acceptable out in the real world. The operator is responsible for pulling together all their suppliers, whether it's their train builder, their fuel supplier, staff provision, or their infrastructure provider. The passenger's contract is with the train operator to get it all in place. If they can't do this reliably, don't advertise they can.

This is incorrect with regards to NR. The power is not with the TOC to "get them in place".

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

The fact is that for an ad to run it has to be "legal, decent, honest and truthful". Irrespective of whether it's GatEx's fault or not that a train does not arrive on time, the ASA have rightly stepped in to shoot them down. GatEx cannot claim to be passing the 'truthful' component of the test if it isn't the case that whatever the expected benchmark of trains aren't arriving within 30 minutes as they stated.

Nothing to do with leaving it to the last minute to get to the airport. Just ensuring that the advertised product is what most people will receive. It may seem strict, but if the line isn't drawn here, then it'll be abused. Not by train companies, but by other more shady advertising campaigns.

 

[Bantamzen]

Passengers were being misled into thinking that GatEx is the fastest and most reliable rail option for getting to the airport. This means that they pay more than other fares that may be available by taking other services from Victoria or other London stations (Discussions about the validity of the fares are probably off-topic).

But it is the technically the quickest route in isn't it? It is cheaper to travel on other services, and depart from other stations but these are all offered when looking for a route on NR & other search engines, and I assume any TVMs along the route? So people can still make the choice.

The problem is that 80% is their PPM probably 0-5mins. The timetable is so close to 30min that achieving PPM will often still mean taking longer than 30min.

Looking at the last 12 weeks most services are <50% of the time making the 0-2min measure meaning the others failed to make it in 30mins.

But they are advertising the planned journey time, which is anything between 27-31 minutes. That operationally they don't always achieve this doesn't mean that it cannot be advertised as such surely? If so in time complaints to ASA could end up forcing TOCs to drastically increase timetable padding as I mentioned above. Another possible example of unintended consequence.

The fact is that for an ad to run it has to be "legal, decent, honest and truthful". Irrespective of whether it's GatEx's fault or not that a train does not arrive on time, the ASA have rightly stepped in to shoot them down. GatEx cannot claim to be passing the 'truthful' component of the test if it isn't the case that whatever the expected benchmark of trains aren't arriving within 30 minutes as they stated.

Nothing to do with leaving it to the last minute to get to the airport. Just ensuring that the advertised product is what most people will receive. It may seem strict, but if the line isn't drawn here, then it'll be abused. Not by train companies, but by other more shady advertising campaigns.

Sadly the ASA lets lots of dodgy adverts pass, look at all those ones aimed at 50 somethings about equity release for example. Possibly the worst idea ever without some serious, independent financial consultation, yet advertise them they continue to do with nothing more than very small text covering some of the caveats. Compared to GatEx running a few minutes late its quite ridiculous what can get past ASA. I fear they go after the easy targets just to appear effective, hence the parish council analogy I made earlier.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

But they are advertising the planned journey time, which is anything between 27-31 minutes. That operationally they don't always achieve this doesn't mean that it cannot be advertised as such surely? If so in time complaints to ASA could end up forcing TOCs to drastically increase timetable padding as I mentioned above. Another possible example of unintended consequence

Most TOCs don't promote timings in their adverts - it's the airport expresses who need to justify their extortionate fares and hold over crucial paths (whizzing their largely empty trains up and down) that do. Hell, most TOCs don't explicitly claim to get you there!

No one is suggesting that a TOC needs to be perfect, but I expect the ASA took the view that a TOC should be meeting their PPM target for a route to be able to advertise that they can run it in the set time. Having a quick read of the ORR website http://orr.gov.uk/rail/economic-reg...periodic-review-2013/pr13-guide/our-decisions, I believe the PPM for this route would be 90%. As GatEx are only hitting 80% of trains on time, then they are not being truthful.

Sadly the ASA lets lots of dodgy adverts pass, look at all those ones aimed at 50 somethings about equity release for example. Possibly the worst idea ever without some serious, independent financial consultation, yet advertise them they continue to do with nothing more than very small text covering some of the caveats. Compared to GatEx running a few minutes late its quite ridiculous what can get past ASA. I fear they go after the easy targets just to appear effective, hence the parish council analogy I made earlier.

That you believe the ASA is falling short in some areas is your opinion and unrelated to this judgement.

 

[Starmill]

The ASA haven't ruled on the performance of Gatwick Express trains, only their advertising. GTR have complied with the ruling too, so it would seem they believe that they do not have a case against the judgement of the ASA.

 

[yorkie]

Quite honestly, and I will probably stand alone in this...

That's one of the few points I will agree with you on.

But it is the technically the quickest route in isn't it?

No; the London Bridge route is actually quicker.

It is cheaper to travel on other services, and depart from other stations but these are all offered when looking for a route on NR & other search engines, and I assume any TVMs along the route? So people can still make the choice.

No sane person would willingly pay a much higher fare (nearly £20 instead of around £8) to travel on the same company, often an identical type of train, taking the same journey time, and often letting other trains go to wait for the right 'brand'.

GTR have been misleading people into paying a higher fare unnecessarily and have been caught out many times, as have their predecessors Southern Railway:
https://londonist.com/2011/07/gatwick-express-fastest-journey-time-into-london-is-misleading

Southern Trains, who operate the Gatwick Express, provided the ASA with a lot of figures about average journey times, frequency of trains and something about considering Oxford Circus to be 'central London'. But the ASA did their own calculations and decided that the fullest examination of real time journey information gave both Southern and FCC the same mean and mode travel times. We did our own non-scientific examination using National Rail's journey planner (below), leaving Victoria and London Bridge at 12.40pm today, and FCC's direct trains were actually a couple of minutes faster.

(and that was before the London Bridge improvements!)

Of course the operator of London Bridge services is no longer going to object, because it's now all one train company who try to mislead people into taking a slower route, e.g. passengers travelling from Gatwick to places on the Southeastern Metro lines have been 'advised' by GTR staff to take a slower route via Victoria and London Underground services, than to take a simple change at London Bridge.

The scale of misadvertising, misleading and mis-selling that has gone on is absolutely staggering.

I fear they go after the easy targets just to appear effective, hence the parish council analogy I made earlier.

Your analogies are totally irrelevant.

If anything the ASA do not go far enough to deal with the likes of GTR.

Almost anyone, who is armed with the relevant information, knows that GTR get up to all sorts of dirty tricks. How anyone can defend them is beyond by comprehension.

 

[Bantamzen]

Most TOCs don't promote timings in their adverts - it's the airport expresses who need to justify their extortionate fares and hold over crucial paths (whizzing their largely empty trains up and down) that do. Hell, most TOCs don't explicitly claim to get you there!

No one is suggesting that a TOC needs to be perfect, but I expect the ASA took the view that a TOC should be meeting their PPM target for a route to be able to advertise that they can run it in the set time. Having a quick read of the ORR website http://orr.gov.uk/rail/economic-reg...periodic-review-2013/pr13-guide/our-decisions, I believe the PPM for this route would be 90%. As GatEx are only hitting 80% of trains on time, then they are not being truthful.

To a degree timetables are advertisements of a service, so how long before someone complains to ASA that one or more TOCs (and there are quite a few right now) are "falsely" advertising times that they cannot keep, be it under their control or not? It is not too long since on this forum one member wondered about complaining to ASA about a Northern tweet talking about "new" seats on the refurbished stock, so it could happen with some possible negative impacts.

That you believe the ASA is falling short in some areas is your opinion and unrelated to this judgement.

This is true. However in my decades worth of experience in the public sector, a sector or department lauding over small "wins" when so many failings can be highlighted is a sign of a failing sector or department. However, this is going way off topic so I'll leave it here by saying I just think this is a storm in a teacup.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

To a degree timetables are advertisements of a service

But the ASA don't regulate them: https://www.asa.org.uk/about-asa-and-cap/the-work-we-do/what-we-cover.html#Inside remit

 

[Bantamzen]

But the ASA don't regulate them: https://www.asa.org.uk/about-asa-and-cap/the-work-we-do/what-we-cover.html#Inside remit

OK, so timetables are not covered directly so that isn't going to be an issue. Fair enough, I wasn't aware.

 

[cuccir]

What's interesting about this is that I doubt easyJet would be criticised for poor operations at Luton Airport, nor BA at Heathrow, unless they were the airline's fault?

Although following this thought - if (say) some issues at Luton Airport meant that all planes had taxiing times extended by 10 minutes then an advert saying 'Paris in under 90 minutes' would presumably be open to the same objection by the ASA, even if the extended time was not EasyJet's fault.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

Although following this thought - if (say) some issues at Luton Airport meant that all planes had taxiing times extended by 10 minutes then an advert saying 'Paris in under 90 minutes' would presumably be open to the same objection by the ASA, even if the extended time was not EasyJet's fault.

That depends on how long the issues last for. If the issues are for a day or two, but otherwise performance is met over a long period, then that's not grounds for objection. If however the extra 10 minutes was some permanent thing, then yes, it should be objectionable.

On the subject of fault, that's not the ASA's problem. EasyJet can still do business, and can still advertise. They just can't advertise that journey as being sub-90 minutes if they can't do it at the frequency expected by the average customer (likely interpreted by the ASA as meeting whatever target regulators set). EasyJet won't tank off the back of not being able to make such specific claims, I'm sure!

 

[Mag_seven]

Gatwick Express 30-minute ad claims ruled 'misleading' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-45023993



Unsurprisingly, GX's adverts that state they run "non-stop to Victoria Station in half an hour" have been ruled missing by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) because Govia Thameslink Railway is frequently not able to achieve this timing.

The ASA have decided that as a significant proportion of the delays are within GTR's control, and that only in 'exceptional circumstances' should trains take longer than 30 minutes.

I'm sure this is not the first time that there has been advertising ruled on as misleading in relation to this route, and indeed other 'Airport Express' routes in London. It would seem that the industry is having great difficulty in learning that consistently sub-par performance has unpredictable negative consequences.

It's good to know that at least someone (in this case the ASA) is successful holding certain elements of the rail industry to account!

 

[AlterEgo]

What's interesting about this is that I doubt easyJet would be criticised for poor operations at Luton Airport, nor BA at Heathrow, unless they were the airline's fault?

Airlines don't usually claim to be the fastest among their competitors though.

 

[Taunton]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-45023993

Govia Thameslink Railway, which runs Gatwick Express services, said it was difficult to mitigate against certain causes of delays, such as staff sickness.

That's a ridiculous attitude as well. The operator has made a commercial decision on budgeting how many (or few, or none) standby staff they have available. If they did not have enough to cover anything outside a wholly exceptional condition, that's entirely up to them when it leads to them failing to meet their advertised service level.

 

[KeithP]

But the bottom line is generally speaking you can get from Waterloo to Gatwick in 30 minutes. Or am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the fact that Gatwick Express goes from Victoria.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, you are missing the fact that Gatwick Express goes from Victoria.

Oops, yes dropped the ball there!

 

[sbt]

I think some people are missing the point a bit. Saying 'in 30 minutes if circumstances don't prevent it - which they do 80% of the time - but it's not our fault' (80% invented) is 'truthful' and OK, 'in 30 minutes' is not truthful and not allowed.

It doesn't matter whose fault it is, if it's not the truth then it fails the test. It would be a bit like telling passengers that a train was running when it had suffered a failure down the line because 'not our fault' otherwise - passengers still don't get home, regardless of intent. Or saying that your restaurants serve chicken when you know that your transport supplier can't supply them with actual chickens - but you paid them to supply the chickens so that's OK, isn't it?

----

Actually this case is closer to advertising a service in the timetable then not running on most days it because not enough drivers passed for the route. Looks shiny in the press and Parliament, 'intent' is there, still leaves passengers stood on the platform late for work. Sadly GTRs entries in the timetable aren't covered by the ASA.

 

[Bantamzen]

Post deleted