Railcard Advertising. (is it legal?)

[Wallsendmag]

Although some longer distance operators are pushing us in that direction as well.

All fares areshown on BR fares I haven't found Ryanairfares yet

 

[Ediswan]

This in the same kind of category of "redbull didn't actually give me wings"

Current Red Bull advertising says "wiiings".

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's the fact that it is so obviously untrue that makes it acceptable.

You could say the same about Northern's Sunday timetable.

 

[redreni]

You could say the same about Northern's Sunday timetable.

*chuckles*

 

[D6700]

All fares areshown on BR fares I haven't found Ryanairfares yet

Yes, absolutely. All (circa) 350 different fares between London and Edinburgh are shown in a list on a website few outside the enthusiast world will know of, nevermind understand.

And that's before allowing for child fares and railcards. As you imply, completely transparent and straightforward

 

[The exile]

Yeah, could they potentially be in trouble if someone complained based on that photograph of that particular poster ad? The Advertising Standards Commission can presumably only consider the advert the complaint relates to and would have to consider it as it appeared, not how it might have been intended to appear?

At most I expect they would make a ruling saying it mustn't appear in that form again, confirm that the version that includes the small print would be acceptable provided the small print is clearly visible, and some sort of effort would have to be made to prevent it happening again.

In most cases it would be over harsh to blame the advertiser for the fact that a poster has been poorly displayed / slipped. In the case of a railway advert in a railway station the link is a bit closer, but unless it could be shown that it was being done consistently and deliberately, it would still be a bit tough.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jul 2025 ==

Current Red Bull advertising says "wiiings".

Which, like the change from “Iron Brew” may be just enough!

 

[redreni]

*

In most cases it would be over harsh to blame the advertiser for the fact that a poster has been poorly displayed / slipped. In the case of a railway advert in a railway station the link is a bit closer, but unless it could be shown that it was being done consistently and deliberately, it would still be a bit tough.

I fear the authorities might share that view.

I don't agree. Nobody forces businesses to advertise. If they do, as far as I'm concerned they have to make sure their advert is not misleading, not generally or most of the time, but on the occasion that the ASA has been asked by a complainant to look at.

That's why, incidentally, that "beach body ready" advert for women's swimwear was deemed sexist, even though it generally appeared alongside a very similar advert for the same company's men's swimwear featuring the same slogan - the ASA just looked at the specific advert complained of, not at the advertising campaign as a whole.

We do live in a country where enforcement of advertising standards is rather lax by European standards, though.

 

[The exile]

*

I fear the authorities might share that view.

I don't agree. Nobody forces businesses to advertise. If they do, as far as I'm concerned they have to make sure their advert is not misleading, not generally or most of the time, but on the occasion that the ASA has been asked by a complainant to look at.

But the advert itself is not misleading- merely the way it has been displayed. I can see that the ASA might then call for the “small print” to be displayed in a position where it is less likely to be obscured by slippage - but the fact that a poster slips is no more the responsibility of the advertiser than if someone came along and graffitied out the small print.

 

[redreni]

But the advert itself is not misleading- merely the way it has been displayed. I can see that the ASA might then call for the “small print” to be displayed in a position where it is less likely to be obscured by slippage - but the fact that a poster slips is no more the responsibility of the advertiser than if someone came along and graffitied out the small print.

Using the word 'merely' doesn't alter the fact that whether a consumer is misled by an advert may depend on the way it is displayed.

I don't think the cases of graffiti and slippage are comparable at all. One is criminal damage entirely outside the advertiser's control, the other is a task that the advertiser might well have contracted out, but is still paying for and ultimately responsible for, not being done properly.

For what it's worth I think your view is almost certainly closer to what the ASA would conclude than mine, but there you go, life's all about opinions.

My approach to things might well force advertisers to be more careful. It might even drive up advertising rates if advertising agencies had to actually check their people's work a bit more and maintain their display units a bit better, or maybe give them a bit more time so they can do a proper job, but it would ensure that the most important part of an advert (the bit that contains the information the advertiser is required, by statute or regulation, to give you) has to be visible every time, otherwise the advertiser gets a complaint against them upheld (if anyone is minded to complain).

Going by surface area, 95% of that poster is probably visible, however, easily 95% of the actual information the poster is supposed to contain is missing.

 

[D6700]

Since Irn Bru has has had a mention, I was devastated to discover it wasn't actually made from girders! Cheated and robbed - a blight on my childhood

 

[The exile]

Since Irn Bru has has had a mention, I was devastated to discover it wasn't actually made from girders! Cheated and robbed - a blight on my childhood

Hence “made wi’ girders” (They hold up the roof!)

 

[yorksrob]

Since Irn Bru has has had a mention, I was devastated to discover it wasn't actually made from girders! Cheated and robbed - a blight on my childhood

Terrible for those of us hoping to boost our iron intake !

 

[OscarH]

All fares areshown on BR fares I haven't found Ryanairfares yet

Although I'm sure some people at RDG/LNER would change that if they could!

 

[saismee]

That's before we even get into split tickets, rovers, GroupSave, TOC-specific group discounts, rangers, regional Railcards, SuperFares, ScotRail Kids For A Quid, Club Avanti, LNER cashback, the fact that mature students can get a 16-25 railcard, Scotland NEC, Unizones, GTR money back guarantee, XC feeless Advance ticket changes, PlusBus, Nothern Duo, gold cards, RailMaster, Rail & Sail, flexipasses, GA pregnant passenger first class upgrades, SeatFrog, carnets, season tickets, flexi passes, etc etc.

You got flexi passes twice but forgot a few things such as CCST tickets, loo roll tickets (and their thinner orange counterpart), e-tickets, m-tickets, London transfer tickets, and smart cards. Some with varying costs and all with their own drawbacks. Especially smart cards... I've had bad experiences with them because my local station doesn't have a tap in point for when I used flexi passes. I wouldn't wish half the pain of trying to activate a flexi pass within 10 minutes of boarding your train - it just pretends to activate and then doesn't!!!

 

[D6700]

Although I'm sure some people at RDG/LNER would change that if they could!

Most probably true!

Of course, even though the numerical values they can pick from for the fares are publicly listed, there's absolutely no way of knowing which fare will apply to any journey, so there's pretty much zero transparency anyway - especially on the routes subjected to the "innovative" fares "trial".

 

[styles]

You got flexi passes twice

Damnit!

but forgot a few things such as CCST tickets, loo roll tickets (and their thinner orange counterpart), e-tickets, m-tickets, London transfer tickets, and smart cards. Some with varying costs and all with their own drawbacks. Especially smart cards... I've had bad experiences with them because my local station doesn't have a tap in point for when I used flexi passes. I wouldn't wish half the pain of trying to activate a flexi pass within 10 minutes of boarding your train - it just pretends to activate and then doesn't!!!

Yeah then on top of that you have the usual stuff you get with airlines like credit card points for spend, cashback offers, reward tiers like GWR and Avanti now offer, etc.

What's somewhat ironic really is I advocate for trying to simplify much of this, but I personally benefit from the complicated array of options.

 

[redreni]

Most probably true!

Of course, even though the numerical values they can pick from for the fares are publicly listed, there's absolutely no way of knowing which fare will apply to any journey, so there's pretty much zero transparency anyway - especially on the routes subjected to the "innovative" fares "trial".

Indeed, but I fear pretty much zero transparency may be too much for some people. Actually zero would suit them better.

You'd think becoming public officials working for a nationalised organisation might change that, but it seems not to.

 

[saismee]

Yeah then on top of that you have the usual stuff you get with airlines like credit card points for spend, cashback offers, reward tiers like GWR and Avanti now offer, etc.

What's somewhat ironic really is I advocate for trying to simplify much of this, but I personally benefit from the complicated array of options.

Can't forget JURNYON - but only for iPhone users

 

[styles]

Can't forget JURNYON

I've never even heard of that, and I travel to Wales roughly monthly, and grew up there.

Almost proving that this whole setup is ridiculous

 

[Haywain]

You'd think becoming public officials working for a nationalised organisation might change that, but it seems not to.

Working for a company that is owned by the government does not make anyone a "public official".

 

[cholsey-choose]

It's the fact that it is so obviously untrue that makes it acceptable.

Exactly! This is what people who get upset about "literally" as an intensifier ("I literally exploded") fail to grasp. The absurdity or obvious exaggeration is what makes it clear how the wording is meant.

Although some longer distance operators are pushing us in that direction as well.

Do you think so? I was just thinking that on the routes I take (mostly GWR and crosscountry) I see fewer ultra-cheap advance fares available these days.

 

[Deerfold]

Since Irn Bru has has had a mention, I was devastated to discover it wasn't actually made from girders! Cheated and robbed - a blight on my childhood

It does contain Ammonium Ferric Citrate which is used to take rust off girders.

 

[miami]

If you buy an expensive ticket and buy a railcard in the same transaction it's accurate to say it does pay for itself in no time. On the other hand if you pay for the railcard and never use it you won't make any savings ever.

Personally I'd get rid of railcard costs. If the point is to encourage people who wouldn't otherwise use the railway then it's a massive problem upfront for short journeys, you've got a choice of buying a family railcard and ticket for 70 or just the tickets for 50, you have to guess if you'll do it again, so you end up driving and parking for £40 as its far cheaper

If railcards were free all of a sudden it's cheaper by train.

If you need to stay revenue neutral, reduce the discount. Sure major rail users will lose out, but occasional users won't, and more people using the network (even if not more journeys) is good as it makes trains less of the rich-mans-toy they are now.

 

[Haywain]

you've got a choice of buying a family railcard and ticket for 70 or just the tickets for 50, you have to guess if you'll do it again, so you end up driving and parking for £40 as its far cheaper

If those were the options, driving would always have been the choice.

 

[yorksrob]

Do you think so? I was just thinking that on the routes I take (mostly GWR and crosscountry) I see fewer ultra-cheap advance fares available these days.

In terms of forcing us onto specific trains, yes they are.

 

[miami]

If those were the options, driving would always have been the choice.

With just the 30% discount then the tickets would be £35 and cheaper than driving.

If rail is no use for the average person, why does the average person subsidise it so much?

What is the point of a railcard, is it to give a "frequent traveller" discount, or is it to attract journeys to the railway which wouldn't normally be done on the railway?

 

[Haywain]

With just the 30% discount then the tickets would be £35 and cheaper than driving.

Indeed, but the wasn't the choice I commented on.

 

[redreni]

If rail is no use for the average person, why does the average person subsidise it so much?

Because, in a complex economy, we benefit from other people and goods moving around by rail, rather than by road or not at all.

On some routes, if most of the rail passengers and freight moved onto a parallel motorway, the average person who currently drives would face pretty appalling additional congestion. Where a road is already operating close to its capacity, introducing additional traffic can have an exponential negative impact on journey times.

 

[cholsey-choose]

Because, in a complex economy, we benefit from other people and goods moving around by rail, rather than by road or not at all.

On some routes, if most of the rail passengers and freight moved onto a parallel motorway, the average person who currently drives would face pretty appalling additional congestion. Where a road is already operating close to its capacity, introducing additional traffic can have an exponential negative impact on journey times.

Agreed. Not to mention most people benefit from having the option to use rail occasionally, and like most infrastructure it contributes a lot to the economy and thereby to their standard of living.

 

[redreni]

Agreed. Not to mention most people benefit from having the option to use rail occasionally, and like most infrastructure it contributes a lot to the economy and thereby to their standard of living.

Yes. Which is not to say it's acceptable if most ordinary people can't afford to travel by train, of course.

It just means cutting the subsidy and leaving it purely as a rich person's plaything isn't an option either: if anything, the share of operating costs stumped up by the taxpayer needs to increase to improve accessibility of the service.