th3jash
Stansted Express non-broadcast
Various posters at Stansted airport included an image of a train, the text "35 MINUTES" or "TRAIN TO LONDON 35 MINUTES" and various images of iconic central London landmarks including Big Ben, the London Eye and Nelson's Column.
The complainant objected that the ad was misleading because it implied that the train would take passengers directly to central London in 35 minutes, when he understood that the time was measured from the airport to Tottenham Hale.
We noted trains from Stansted airport terminated at Liverpool Street in central London and that it took 45 minutes to complete the journey. We also noted these trains stopped at Tottenham Hale in North London in 35 minutes and that, from here, travellers could connect to the London Underground and the Victoria line through to Central London. Although we accepted the ads did not explicitly state that the 35 minute train journey would take travellers directly to central London, we considered that without further qualifying text or symbols, the images of iconic London landmarks such a Big Ben, the London Eye and Nelson's column strongly implied that the train would take passengers to the city centre directly from the airport. We understood that the Victoria Line did travel straight through central parts of the city, but considered that for the purposes of tourism or business, Tottenham Hale was unlikely to be considered central. We understood that many travellers would not necessarily speak English and that the use of tourist landmarks was intended to communicate a simple message. However, we considered that the simplicity of the message could potentially confuse visitors about where in the city they would get to in 35 minutes. We considered that the combination of the text "35 minutes" alongside the images of iconic central London landmarks, implied that travellers would reach central London within that time and that because this was not the case, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
The ad should not appear again in its current form.
Stansted Express non-broadcast
Various posters at Stansted airport included an image of a train, the text "35 MINUTES" or "TRAIN TO LONDON 35 MINUTES" and various images of iconic central London landmarks including Big Ben, the London Eye and Nelson's Column.
The complainant objected that the ad was misleading because it implied that the train would take passengers directly to central London in 35 minutes, when he understood that the time was measured from the airport to Tottenham Hale.
We noted trains from Stansted airport terminated at Liverpool Street in central London and that it took 45 minutes to complete the journey. We also noted these trains stopped at Tottenham Hale in North London in 35 minutes and that, from here, travellers could connect to the London Underground and the Victoria line through to Central London. Although we accepted the ads did not explicitly state that the 35 minute train journey would take travellers directly to central London, we considered that without further qualifying text or symbols, the images of iconic London landmarks such a Big Ben, the London Eye and Nelson's column strongly implied that the train would take passengers to the city centre directly from the airport. We understood that the Victoria Line did travel straight through central parts of the city, but considered that for the purposes of tourism or business, Tottenham Hale was unlikely to be considered central. We understood that many travellers would not necessarily speak English and that the use of tourist landmarks was intended to communicate a simple message. However, we considered that the simplicity of the message could potentially confuse visitors about where in the city they would get to in 35 minutes. We considered that the combination of the text "35 minutes" alongside the images of iconic central London landmarks, implied that travellers would reach central London within that time and that because this was not the case, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
The ad should not appear again in its current form.