JQ : Misleading adverts

[Dave Noble]

From the Sydney morning Herald, a report about Jetstar's adverts for Bali actually being photographed in Phuket may have breached Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, which prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct.

Jetstar: what you see is not what you'll get - Business - Business - smh.com.au

Dave

 

[Mal]

Tssk. Tssk. Jetstar!

I think they'll get away with it though. A lot of punters shown a photo of a Bali beach side by side with a photo of a Phuket beach would never be able to tell you which was which.

Just like a non-descriptive photo of a Sydney street next to a non-descriptive photo of a Melbourne street may elicit the same level of unknown.

BTW, the link posted didn't work for me. I had to use : Jetstar: what you see is not what you'll get - Business - Business - smh.com.au

 

[FlyFirst]

Hi all

I hadn't looked at the pictures per se - but what I do think is misleading is Jetstar's claim that they will deliver airfares and packages for 'a fraction' of what you're paying now (I think they also use the word 'probably'??) .

This is perhaps technically true... anything less that what you are paying now would be a 'fraction', but in reality it implies you would be paying a very small amount of what you pay now.

Given their packages to Bali and Viet Nam come in at the same price (if not more) than packages available through Garuda and Vietnam Airlines, I think their claims (to the average person in the street) are misleading.

Interesting to also note that the Age (2 weeks ago on Saturday) claimed that Jetstar's tickets were well below current costs - saying that unlke other airline's websites, Jetstar's pricing was all inclusive. The Age said fares to Bali (for regular travel periods they claimed, not the specials) were $550 (and it indeed the very first booking page does say total cost) - but you have to go to the next page to get all the taxes... taking the fare - at today's prices (for travel in Feb 07) to over $800.

And while I'm on the subject - some (all??) of Jetstar's package holidays don't mention transfers (unlike Thai Airways, Garuda or Vietnam Airlines packages).

Oh well, rant hat off.

Regards

FlyFirst

 

[Dave Noble]

Hi all

I hadn't looked at the pictures per se - but what I do think is misleading is Jetstar's claim that they will deliver airfares and packages for 'a fraction' of what you're paying now (I think they also use the word 'probably'??) .

This is perhaps technically true... anything less that what you are paying now would be a 'fraction', but in reality it implies you would be paying a very small amount of what you pay now.

Given that it is technically correct, then I don't see that there would be any valid compaint. Even if the fares were higher, they would still be a fraction of the current price (e.g. if the fare was 1/3 more, it would be 4/3 of the current price )

Of course if there is a fare difference where dividing the 2 costs does not produce a rational number, then they are providing a misleading advert

Dave

 

[maninblack]

Well Jetstar is like any budget operator. It's all about the hype. The reality may be a little different but I reckon thats okay at the price as long as they are not telling flat out lies. Accept it for what it is. And check the fares and conditions against non-budget carriers, to keep them honest. At least they are flying new aircraft unlike some of the Qantas fleet which has been around since B&W TV...well almost.

 

[FlyFirst]

Given that it is technically correct, then I don't see that there would be any valid compaint.
Dave

I think most people however would apply the common usage/understanding of the phrase 'for a fraction', and this is where, even if technically correct, the advertisement can be misleading.

FF.

 

[Dave Noble]

I think most people however would apply the common usage/understanding of the phrase 'for a fraction', and this is where, even if technically correct, the advertisement can be misleading.

FF.

However when it comes to adverts, it is the technical accuracy which tends to dictate their validity and an improper fraction is still a fraction. e.g. complaints were made about BA advertising online check in and how you would not need to queue to check in; a complaint was made that they had queues for dropping bags off at fast bag drop. The authority ruled in favour of BA since they validly claimed that since the person was checked in, they could not be queueing to check in and that a queue for fast bag drop did not consitute a check in queue

Dave

 

[dajop]

However when it comes to adverts, it is the technical accuracy which tends to dictate their validity and an improper fraction is still a fraction.

If there fares are 8/7ths that of a competitors is that still a fraction? Technically I guess it is.

What grates on me with the TV ads is the whole choice bit. Recently flew BNE-DRW on JQ (thankfully at last minute on a JetFlex fare), and the menu offered a choice of hot foods - mini-pizza or heated sub. They didn't have any mini-pizza's on board, my preferred choice (and I was in Row 1, so it wasn't as if they ran out). The guy next to me mad a beverage choice of rum and coke from the menu, and again didn't have any of that on board. So it grates on me when hear all about choice.

 

[FlyFirst]

However when it comes to adverts, it is the technical accuracy which tends to dictate their validity and an improper fraction is still a fraction. e.g. complaints were made about BA advertising online check in and how you would not need to queue to check in; a complaint was made that they had queues for dropping bags off at fast bag drop. The authority ruled in favour of BA since they validly claimed that since the person was checked in, they could not be queueing to check in and that a queue for fast bag drop did not consitute a check in queue

Dave

Just checked the ACC website and I quote:

Companies engaged in advertising goods or services must be careful not to send a message that creates, or could create, a wrong picture in the minds of those who receive the message. Failing to disclose important information in advertising may also sometimes be misleading.


​

The 'create a wrong picture' I think is key here - telling people they pay a fraction of what they probably pay now would create the impression that J* prices are well below what is currently available?

Regards

FlyFirst

 

[one9]

Just checked the ACC website and I quote:

Companies engaged in advertising goods or services must be careful not to send a message that creates, or could create, a wrong picture in the minds of those who receive the message. Failing to disclose important information in advertising may also sometimes be misleading....​

But Jetstar probably disclose their pricing in their conditions.

I think the wrong location in the picture is more misleading.



​

 

[one9]

If there fares are 8/7ths that of a competitors is that still a fraction? Technically I guess it is.

What grates on me with the TV ads is the whole choice bit. Recently flew BNE-DRW on JQ (thankfully at last minute on a JetFlex fare), and the menu offered a choice of hot foods - mini-pizza or heated sub. They didn't have any mini-pizza's on board, my preferred choice (and I was in Row 1, so it wasn't as if they ran out). The guy next to me mad a beverage choice of rum and coke from the menu, and again didn't have any of that on board. So it grates on me when hear all about choice.

You are talking about domestic Jetstar.

It is Jetstar International who are advertising choice.

I read previously about Jetstar International doing some things differently than Jetstar domestic, eg. offering a larger selection of foods than many airline carriers (but you have to pay).

 

[NM]

I don't see anything majorly wrong with using a beach from another location. After all, I might visit Bali and go looking for the beach with the picturesque point jutting out into the water and not be able to find it, in just the same way as I can't find the well-tanned model in an orange top doing star-jumps on the sand. Just because the model is not found on the beach at Bali does not mean the poster advertisement was misleading??

I don't think it is necessary for the ad to include an * with a small-print disclaimer that the model shown in the picture may not actually be located on the beach at Bali at the time of your visit.

 

[duffshot]

I don't think it is necessary for the ad to include an * with a small-print disclaimer that the model shown in the picture may not actually be located on the beach at Bali at the time of your visit.

But if they could gaurantee she would be it would definitely be worth stating