Download decision - New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority

04/210
DECISION
Meeting 13 July 2004
Complaint 04/210
Complainant: S Bradshaw
Advertiser: Air New Zealand
Complaint: An advertisement for Air New Zealand was published in The Press on Saturday
29 May 2004. The headline stated, “Great deals to Australia. Be There.” Among images of
travellers the graphics read, “Sydney from only $114* One-way internet fare includes fuel
surcharge. Melbourne from only $114*…Brisbane from only $164*…Perth from only
$384*…”. The conditions, referred to in fine print, included *…Prices exclude airport taxes,
an insurance surcharge of $8 per sector…”.
The Complainant said:
“I have enclosed an Air New Zealand advertisement, which still indicates that the standards to
which the advertising of flight specials should adhere is unclear and misleading.
The advertisement does make it clear that the prices are those obtainable through online
booking only and that prices are inclusive of a fuel surcharge of $15 per sector. But then in the
fine print (fair enough) includes this poorly constructed sentence:
“Prices exclude airport taxes, an insurance surcharge of $8 per sector.”
The advertisement has gone to great lengths to assure customers that the price includes the $15
surcharge (this is repeated in large font) and excludes the $8 surcharge. One is left to presume
that then the airport taxes must either be of similar amounts approximately or less. The flights
are to and from certain main centres, so the advertisers are very capable of providing definitive
figures for airport taxes, or at the very least indicate that they range from a certain figure
upwards. However the additional costs are very significant at $91!
The hidden and additional costs are not fully disclosed at the time of presentation. They are
only shown at the point, online, when the second and final booking confirmation is requested.
At which point payment details are also finalised. The overall impression given by the
advertisement is misleading. That the one-way ticket
to Sydney is $114 including $15 and excluding $8 with a few airport taxes thrown in, gives no
indication that these taxes easily approach $100 for a return trip.
2
04/210
Holding out on this significant $ figure till the last moment is very misleading. While I did
purchase the ticket in the end, I would not have done that if I hadn’t already made plans with a
friend to go. This is exactly what the advertiser is relying on. That I only have access to the full
information of cost when confirming a booking online, when the information is not dependent
on the time of flight, but is capable of being expressed far earlier, is misleading.
Dirty tactics, that make me ashamed of our national carrier. Competition is about improving
service and efficiency, not slight-of-hand marketing.”
The Chairman ruled that the following provision was relevant:
The Code of Ethics
Rule 2
Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual
presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission,
ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the
consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or
exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is
not considered to be misleading).
The Advertiser, Air New Zealand, said on behalf of itself and its Agency Colenso BBDO:
“This response to the above complaint from Mr S Bradshaw, is on behalf of Air New Zealand
and Colenso BBDO.
You have identified the relevant section of the Code of Practice as being the Code of Ethics Rule 2:
Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual
presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission,
ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead
the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer
or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as
such, is not considered to be misleading).
We do not accept that the advertisement is misleading or deceptive, or likely to deceive or
mislead consumers, because the existence of airport taxes is clearly notified in the
advertisement. The exact amount of any airport tax will vary from day to day due to exchange
rate differences. It will also vary between airports. In addition, some airports (such as Sydney)
have noise taxes. We think that the complainant’s suggestion of showing indicative airport
3
04/210
costs ranging from a certain figure upwards is not practical and would not make the
advertisements simpler or clearer.
To the best of our knowledge, no airlines or travel agents include the amount of airport taxes in
their advertisements and we believe it is standard industry practice for these not to be shown in
the advertisement. Given the prevalence of air travel, especially to Australia, we believe most
consumers have a good awareness of both the existence and the general level of airport costs.
We would point out these are not airline costs and we are required to collect them on behalf of
the airports.
Furthermore, we would point out that the consumer will be told of the exact airport taxes
figure prior to making the booking. The consumer is free to decline to proceed and is in no
way misled about the total cost before being committed to the booking. This applies to any
method of booking.
For these reasons, we do not think there is anything misleading about the advertisement.”
Deliberation
The Complaints Board read the correspondence and examined the advertisement. The
Complainant contended that the advertisement was misleading, and deceptively so in its
presentation. The Chairman directed the Board to consider the advertisement in terms of Rule
2 of the Code of Ethics and, in particular, to consider whether it contained anything which
would, or was likely to, mislead the consumer.
Of particular concern to the Complainant was the manner in which the Advertiser manipulated
the presentation of figures. For example, he contended that the one-way airfare including (fuel
surcharge) was clear, unambiguous and printed in large font size. Conversely, the add-on costs
for the airfare were not only unclear but, also, they were buried in fine print under the
advertisement.
As a preliminary matter the Board reiterated its position in relation to the inclusion of
conditions in advertisements. It confirmed that any condition, which diminished the value of an
offer, had to be clear and obvious to the reader in terms of both print size and proximity to the
offer.
In the Board’s view, the use of the asterisk in the advertisement would have, or should have,
alerted a reader to the existence of additional information in relation to the offer.
It also concluded that the use of the asterisk was a common method of highlighting conditions
and, in particular, additional costs. The Board noted the Advertiser’s assertion that the exact
amount of any airport tax varied from day to day according to the exchange rate and as such it
was impractical to specify.
In the Board’s view, even though the “add on costs” were registered in the fine print, the font
size was proportional to the rest of the copy. In addition, the use of the asterisk to identify
4
04/210
conditions which included “add on costs”, was typical of advertisements of this nature. As all
the necessary information was legible and available to the reader, the Board did not consider
the advertisement was misleading in terms of Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.
Accordingly, the Board ruled to not uphold the complaint.
Decision: Complaint Not Upheld