Cell C took issue with 8ta’s campaign which claimed their “95c per minute” offer was “South Africa’s LOWEST Call Rate”.
Cell C argued this was not the case because it was not available to both prepaid and contract customers, plus the rate was only activated once a customer recharges with airtime, which halves the usual 190c per minute rate.
The complainant submission further argued: “If one were to use the same calculations on the complainant’s product, it could work out to an effective 60c per minute charge. Put simply, to obtain what Cell C offers for 99c per minute, an 8.ta customer would pay R1,90 per minute. If one were to achieve the effective 95c per minute rate on 8.ta, one would be able to achieve approximately 60c per minute with Cell C.”
8ta, one of two mobile arms of part state-owned Telkom, argued Cell C had not submitted where they saw the publication of the advertising and assumed it was a television commercial which is no longer running.
The network did however agree to add “to all SA networks” and “prepaid only”, plus referring to the fact 190c being the standard rate.
ASASA accepted these changes, but said it “notes with some concern” 8ta did not engage the services of an Independent Pricing Expert prior to publishing the advert.
It said: “This suggests that the respondent did not hold unequivocal verification of its claim “South Africa’s LOWEST Call Rate” at the time of publishing. Clearly this is contrary to the provisions of the Code.”
The ruling also made reference to the complaint, which was upheld, made by the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) against 8ta in February and added: “Secondly, the Directorate notes that this is the respondent’s second undertaking to amend / withdraw disputed advertising in recent times.”
“It is hoped that the respondent is not merely providing undertakings to withdraw or amend in an effort to avoid adverse rulings or sanctions.”
