Complaint: 11/560

Vodafone Television Advertisement

Details

Complainants
G. Angell
advertisers
Vodafone
Year
2011
Media
Television
Product
Telecommunications
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

DECISION

Chairman's Ruling
6 October 2011


Complaint 11/560


Complainant: G. Angell
Advertisement: Vodafone New Zealand Ltd

Complaint: A television advertisement for Vodafone promoted features of the iphone4. The voice-over said: "If you don't have an iphone you don't have the incredibly high resolution retina display, that makes movies this dramatic, maps this clear, emails this detailed and memories this memorable. Yep, if you don't have an iphone, well, you don't have an iphone." The advertisement includes a number of high definition images and ends with the Vodafone and iphone4 logos.

Complainant, G. Angell, considered the advertisement to be misleading and unrealistic and in their view, the images had been enhanced as the iphone was not capable of displaying images at the resolution shown in the advertisement.

The relevant provisions were Basic Principle 4 and Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.

The Chairman reviewed the advertisement and noted the concerns of the Complainant with what they regarded as misleading image quality shown in the advertisement promoting the iphone4. In the Chairman's view, the images shown were illustrative of the features of the iphone and the quality of them as depicted in the advertisement would be dependent on a number of factors included the definition of the television screen when watching the advertisement. The Chairman considered that if quality definition was a feature that someone was looking for in a smart phone, it was likely that they would take the opportunity to look at the features of the iphone in person. The Chairman said the images used in the advertisement did not reach the threshold to be likely to mislead or deceive consumers under Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics and the advertisement had been prepared with the due sense of social responsibility required by Basic Principle 4.

Accordingly, the Chairman ruled that there was no apparent breach of the Code and no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Chairman's Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed