GWR Reprimanded for misleading statements about ownership

[HSTEd]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/30/train-operators-adverts-banned-owned-by-public-gwr-great-western-railway

The train operator Great Western Railway has been banned from running adverts that suggest its service is publicly owned.

A poster campaign introducing the company formerly known as First Great Western when it rebranded last September stated: “The railway belongs to the region it serves.”

Complainants to the Advertising Standards Authority pointed out that GWR belongs to its owner, FirstGroup, a multinational transport company listed on the London Stock Exchange, and not the people of south-west England.

Well that is rather.... interesting.

 

[Andrewlong]

I struggle to see what the fuss is about - the strap-line used by GWR is pretty bland and doesn't imply public ownership to me. I wonder who made the complaints.

 

[Agent_c]

The one that bothers me is the claim Mr Brunel is their founder... As if they're the "real" GWR and not some Johnny come lately.

 

[sprinterguy]

Cat Hobbs, director of the campaign group We Own It, said: “Privatisation is now so unpopular that train companies can get good PR by pretending to be publicly owned. The GWR advert is misleading – it’s also a sign that it’s time for real public ownership.”

Yes, because publically owned British Rail is renowned for how well loved it was by the travelling public. The grass is always greener... :roll:

 

[richa2002]

Is this not just as bad as the normal nonsense of 'your train' and 'your railway' that TOCs love to seem to say.

 

[jimm]

The full ASA ruling is here

https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adju...-Western-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_316942.aspx#.VvuHxse21zA

 

[bnm]

The FGW/GWR adverts, press releases and website utterings that have been bothering me over recent months are the ones that are along the lines of, "We are investing £7.5bn in the west's railways."

Very often with no mention of Network Rail whatsoever. Implying that the investment money is coming from FGW/GWR.

And GWR have just started implying they are investing in new trains for London to the South West. Those AT300s/Class 802s are being funded by a RoSCo.

 

[Deepgreen]

Good news - while I don't necessarily dislike GWR any more than any other TOC (although I do use them daily), FGW's/GWR's claim that "this is not just a re-branding" (that's exactly what it is!) and talk of "your/the people's railway" have been very irritating and just plain wrong. Their adverts about building a new railway in the west (or similar words) with Network Rail have also been pretty galling, as pretty much all GWR are doing is providing new trains (with subsidy) while NR are doing the actual building/electrification.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, because publically owned British Rail is renowned for how well loved it was by the travelling public. The grass is always greener... :roll:

But it was publicly-owned, not just with the implication of such - that's the point!

 

[ainsworth74]

And GWR have just started implying they are investing in new trains for London to the South West. Those AT300s/Class 802s are being funded by a RoSCo.

Ah they're just taking that one from Virgin's playbook

 

[Phil.]

Is this not just as bad as the normal nonsense of 'your train' and 'your railway' that TOCs love to seem to say.

It certainly is. I get really annoyed by someone telling me that he is my conductor on my train. He's not, he's the conductor on the train.

 

[Deepgreen]

It certainly is. I get really annoyed by someone telling me that he is my conductor on my train. He's not, he's the conductor on the train.

Yes - "this is your (the!) xxx service to xxx, we are now arriving into (at!) xxxx...", etc.

Language-mangling continues unabated on the railways.

 

[CapitalStar378]

The FGW/GWR adverts, press releases and website utterings that have been bothering me over recent months are the ones that are along the lines of, "We are investing £7.5bn in the west's railways."

Very often with no mention of Network Rail whatsoever. Implying that the investment money is coming from FGW/GWR.

Yes, this is a complete lie and should be investigated by the ASA. I tweeted GWR a couple of months ago and asked how much of this £7.5bn was their money and they didn't bother to reply. They're just trying to enamour themselves to the public by making stuff up.

 

[Taunton]

Network Rail, and indeed the Government, are equally misleading in speaking about "investment" in the railway, when much of what they are talking about is straightforward repairs and like-for-like renewal expenditure that are needed as part of a continuing business, funded from the farebox or operating subsidy. Investment is about actually adding to the capital structure of the organisation, typically provided by the owners/shareholders. Crossrail is investment.

For replacement rolling stock, a continuing requirement and expense on a large system, investment is the proportion of the cost that is actually new and additional aspects, such as air conditioning where you didn't have it before, etc. Since much new suburban rolling stock typically now provides less (if not far less) seats than what went before (eg TfL S stock), there should actually be a negative value for such "investment"

 

[najaB]

I struggle to see what the fuss is about - the strap-line used by GWR is pretty bland and doesn't imply public ownership to me. I wonder who made the complaints.

I agree. If it said 'Belongs to the people of....' then I could understand it. 'Belonging' has meanings other than proprietorship - e.g. a sense of belonging, or suitability.

 

[tankmc]

And the Gatwick Express' "30 minutes non stop" is not exactly true. Multiple times I have been on a train that stopped at East Croydon and I have never got to Gatwick in 30 minutes.

 

[Taunton]

I equally surprised that the ASA agreed with the "Brunel was our founder" line, reviewed in the same adjudication. Not only was he not, he wasn't even a founder of the original GWR, but was an independent engineering consultant to them, and to many others, these engineering structures now belonging to Network Rail, not GWR, and are made available to multiple train operators. A forebear, yes, but not a founder. As I understand it, Moir Lockhead was the founder of First Group, owners of the current GWR.

 

[urbophile]

I struggle to see what the fuss is about - the strap-line used by GWR is pretty bland and doesn't imply public ownership to me. I wonder who made the complaints.

Bland it may be, but it is a blatant untruth.

 

[najaB]

Bland it may be, but it is a blatant untruth.

Only if you take 'belongs' to mean proprietorship. If I loaned you a hat, and said 'Oh wow, that belongs there!' I'm not saying that your head owns the hat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the Gatwick Express' "30 minutes non stop" is not exactly true. Multiple times I have been on a train that stopped at East Croydon and I have never got to Gatwick in 30 minutes.

I'm sure the ASA looked at it and found that, while a lot don't, there are non-stop trains timetabled to take 30 minutes. So the claim can stand.

 

[AM9]

Network Rail, and indeed the Government, are equally misleading in speaking about "investment" in the railway, when much of what they are talking about is straightforward repairs and like-for-like renewal expenditure that are needed as part of a continuing business, funded from the farebox or operating subsidy. Investment is about actually adding to the capital structure of the organisation, typically provided by the owners/shareholders. Crossrail is investment.

For replacement rolling stock, a continuing requirement and expense on a large system, investment is the proportion of the cost that is actually new and additional aspects, such as air conditioning where you didn't have it before, etc. Since much new suburban rolling stock typically now provides less (if not far less) seats than what went before (eg TfL S stock), there should actually be a negative value for such "investment"

The fewer seats aspect may be part of a much greater capacity being provided which is a positive investment, (especially if you couldn't even physically get on some trains before. If you go down the 'new trains aren't as nice as the old ones (in this specific aspect)' path then every introduction would have queues of detractors complaining about how it will affect them personally, (a bit like these forums).

 

[Andrewlong]

I agree. If it said 'Belongs to the people of....' then I could understand it. 'Belonging' has meanings other than proprietorship - e.g. a sense of belonging, or suitability.

Also how can a region 'own' a railway? What region are we talking about - the old GWR network, Bristol, Wales, Devon and Cornwall? The ruling from the ASA is silly because the original statement was bland and I don't agree with their interpretation. Feels like it's been driven by the 'privatisation' haters.

 

[Sprinter153]

Also how can a region 'own' a railway? What region are we talking about - the old GWR network, Bristol, Wales, Devon and Cornwall? The ruling from the ASA is silly because the original statement was bland and I don't agree with their interpretation. Feels like it's been driven by the 'privatisation' haters.

Probably driven by the vociferous couple of Twitter trolls / web designers with too much time on their hands who seem to spend all day on there butting in on others' queries and wasting the team's time with banal questions that don't really seem to serve any purpose other than stopping them dealing with people who genuinely need help.

 

[HSTEd]

The argument that it was referring to "belonging" rather than ownership is rather weak in my opinion.
How can you define whether it does or not? That would just be mealy mouthed nonsense. In my opinion it is clear that they were attempting to distance themselves from the fact that they are an organisation that exists for only one purpose.

To make money.

As any and all businesses in a free market must function.

 

[najaB]

In my opinion it is clear that they were attempting to distance themselves from the fact that they are an organisation that exists for only one purpose.

To make money.

As do all businesses. I'm yet to see any business whose slogan is remotely similar to "Taking your money, making it our money."

 

[HSTEd]

As do all businesses. I'm yet to see any business whose slogan is remotely similar to "Taking your money, making it our money."

You know that is a great slogan.
You can get a lot of mileage out of saying something that noone expects you to say

 

[W230]

I remember seeing plenty of FGW adverts when they were still around IMH insinuating they were investing £6 billion in the railway. Nope, that'll be Network Rail...

 

[fgwrich]

I remember seeing plenty of FGW adverts when they were still around IMH insinuating they were investing £6 billion in the railway. Nope, that'll be Network Rail...

Am I right in thinking that the original 'Building A Greater West' posters featured the NR logo? Now GWR don't seem bothered to continue doing that, making it as implied before look as if it's First Groups investment.

Still feel someone should have also been reprimanded for that HST interior too...

 

[route:oxford]

#I belong tae Glasgow, good old Glasgow town...

#...But when I get a couple o' drinks of a Saturday, Glasgow belongs to me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNrVkDqPsbM

 

[yorksrob]

It's good that they appear to be aspiring to a public service ethos.

The proof of the pudding as always, will be in the eating !

 

[ainsworth74]

Am I right in thinking that the original 'Building A Greater West' posters featured the NR logo? Now GWR don't seem bothered to continue doing that, making it as implied before look as if it's First Groups investment.

Yes didn't it start as a joint venture? Network Rail and FGW were both represented I think.

 

[moggie]

I remember seeing plenty of FGW adverts when they were still around IMH insinuating they were investing £6 billion in the railway. Nope, that'll be Network Rail...

Indeed, virtually all TOC's are guilty of claiming the credit which is actually NR's (except of course when it all goes TU).

But, back to the OP; the question should surely be what is the definition of a 'railway'. Well, there may be many but a literal definition is 'a track made of steel rails along which trains run'. If one accepts this particular definition (and who are the ASA to argue) then as NR are indeed a publicly owned organisation then what is inaccurate about the statement. Two things as I see it; 1. GWR have shot themselves in the foot by associating themselves with ownership of the publicly owned railway when they are nothing more than a user; 2. the whole country 'own's it, not just the local region.

So there you have it. I'm right and they are all wrong.