Subscribe

Sanral ad snubbed as misleading

Staff Writer
By Staff Writer, ITWeb
Johannesburg, 02 Jun 2014
Sanral has been ordered to withdraw adverts trumpeting e-tag sales numbers and positioning gantry cameras as a security aid for motorists.
Sanral has been ordered to withdraw adverts trumpeting e-tag sales numbers and positioning gantry cameras as a security aid for motorists.

A small victory has been won by citizens fighting what has been deemed a lack of transparency around e-tolls, with the Advertising Standards Authority of SA (ASA) on Friday directing the SA National Roads Agency (Sanral) to withdraw certain e-toll adverts.

This comes after three complaints around dubious claims in Sanral's ads - submitted by a member of the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) and two other consumers - were lodged with the ASA, which on Friday ruled in favour of the complainants.

Sanral has to withdraw what the ASA holds is factually incorrect advertising, and may not use the disputed facts again in their current format in future - unless the roads agency submits appropriate substantiation.

Misleading marketing

According to Outa, the alliance's social media consultant Rob Hutchinson and a consumer, Sheleen Long, lodged complaints with the ASA against Sanral for a radio commercial thanking "people and organisations that have taken up 1.2 million tags for the Gauteng e-roads".

The advert further stated that such people had "recognised the benefits of the improved roads ...keeping the lights on and the cameras watching over you". However, the ASA says Sanral had not provided proof of the number of e-tags sold, despite being given "ample time" to substantiate its claim. The ASA ruled the claim was therefore both unsubstantiated and misleading - in contravention of Clause 4.1 of Section II of its code.

With respect to the second complaint, the ASA also ruled the cameras were not "watching over you" as a safety measure, and this claim created a "misleading impression, and exaggerates the functionality and the purpose of the cameras" since "they serve no safety purpose and are merely used for billing purposes".

The third complaint, lodged by consumer Stephen Haywood, brought into dispute Sanral's claims of the road user's average monthly cost of e-tolls. Haywood argued these claims were "flawed and ambiguous, if not disingenuous".

While Sanral claimed that more than 82.83% of motorists would pay less than R100 per month and only 1% of road users would pay more than R400 per month, Haywood calculated, on the basis of known traffic volumes between Johannesburg and Pretoria, that the actual figures were vastly different.

He argued that in all likelihood less than 8% would pay less than R100 per month and that 10% would pay more than R400 per month (and reach the e-tagged capped amount of R450 per month).

According to the ASA, Sanral was given time to substantiate their calculations, but failed to do so and it therefore upheld the complaint. Outa spokesperson John Clarke says the rulings illustrate "the importance of active citizenship and challenging that which appears to be untrue".

Sanral had not responded to request for comment by the time of publication.

Share