ASA Bans DAB Audio Quality Claims

17th October 2005

In the October issue of their Broadcasting Advertising Adjudications, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld 2 out of 3 complaints about the use of the following terms in an adverts for DAB radio:

'cyrstal clear sound'
'distortion free'

Here are the ASA's rulings (the full text is on page 7-9 of the document):

Ruling on complaint 2:

"We noted that DAB digital radio removed the hiss and crackle that could interfere with analogue radio. However, we understood that, particularly in areas where the digital signal was poor, distortion could occur with DAB digital radio. While hiss and crackle were removed, there were other factors that could impact on the clarity of the sound, such as the distance between the transmitter and the receiver. We noted that Switchdigital acknowledged that “individual listening environments” and the presence of “artifacts” on some radio stations could lead to problems with sound quality. We also noted that a signal which was too “high” or too “low” could lead to the sort of “bubbly” or “gurgling” problem highlighted by the complainant. We therefore considered that not all DAB digital radio listeners would receive “distortion free” and “crystal clear” sound and concluded that the claims were misleading."

Ruling on complaint 3:

"We believed the ad would be understood by listeners to mean that DAB digital radio was superior to analogue in terms of audio quality, particularly since the benefits of DAB were set in contrast to problems that affected analogue (“taking the hiss out of the way you listen to the radio”). We received no evidence to show that DAB digital radio was superior to analogue radio in terms of audio quality. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad was in breach of CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2, rule 3 (Misleadingness)."

Although this is a very good result for anybody that knows the truth about the audio quality and reception quality on DAB, I am disappointed with the ASA's ruling on complaint 1:

Ruling on complaint 1:

"The RACC said the ad did not claim that DAB digital radio duplicated the original sound of recordings. They therefore believed that the complainant had misinterpreted the ad.

We agreed. The ad did not claim that DAB digital radio duplicated the original sound of recordings. We considered that listeners would understand the claim “distortion free” referred merely to the absence of interference. We therefore considered that the ad was not misleading for the reason suggested by the complainant."

Here is the relevant dictionary definition of the word 'distortion' as applied to the subject of audio signals:

"noun: a change (usually undesired) in the waveform of an acoustic or analog electrical signal; the difference between two measurements of a signal (as between the input and output signal)"

I would also suggest that that is the commonly-held understanding of the word, so I disagree with the ASA's view that the general public only consider distortion with respect to radio to mean 'interference'.

Other than that, though, I'm very happy with this ruling.

Note, however, this ruling only bans these terms from broadcast adverts, and I'm pretty sure that the Internet doesn't come under the jurisdiction of the ASA, so online retailers and broadcasters' websites can continue to make these ludicrous claims about the audio and reception quality that DAB provides. I would urge people to contact their trading standards office to complain about such mis-leading claims, especially on the broadcasters' websites and the big online retailers, quoting the ASA's decision that the terms are mis-leading. The most efficacious way to take action would be, for example, to complain to your trading standards office about, say Argos or the other big online retailers, because that way they would have to remove all claims about all DAB products, and that is better than messing about with all the smaller online retailers.

It would be nice to think that the BBC and the other broadcasters would voluntarily remove these mis-leading claims, but I suppose the fact that they're happy to make such mis-leading claims in the first place shows that they're not bothered about mis-leading the public.