LNER Centenary

[shawmat]

It looks like the "new" LNER is appropriating the history of the old London & North Eastern Railway 1923-1947. The Big 4 companies have their centenaries this year, and we should celebrate their highs and lows.

On the other hand, "new" LNER is claiming continuity with the old, which is a very different thing. Their web page is entitled "LNER: 100 YEARS OF PIONEERING PROGRESS FOR PASSENGERS" https://www.lner.co.uk/news/lner-100-years-of-pioneering-progress-for-passengers/

It contains this bold claim:

"The iconic rail company has connected the capital city of England with the far stretching corners of Scotland for a century and is globally renowned for delivering high speed rail services in style, comfort and with beautiful destinations."

Actually, new LNER was announced on 18 June 2018 after Virgin Trains East Coast handed back its franchise. In other words, there was a gap over 70 years when LNER didn't exist, other than as a dormant trademark.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

It is only one line that is factually incorrect; the rest is a great way to promote the ‘East Coast Line’.

 

[Jagdpanther]

Rather than 'factually incorrect' it is a complete and total lie.

 

[DelW]

"Globally renowned" ? I think hardly anyone outside Britain will have heard of the current incarnation, and only a few more will have heard of the original Big Four company - mainly those will be enthusiasts who know of the A4s, which are hardly relevant to the modern operation.

 

[birchesgreen]

It is fascinating how large the Big 4 (well except GWR, they existed for longer) loom in railway history when they only existed for 20 odd years.

 

[Wallsendmag]

BA did exactly the same thing a couple of years back.

 

[Huntergreed]

Indeed, and if Avanti lose their franchise and OLR decide to go with LMS, it’s quite possible we may have all 4 back by the middle of the year!

 

[mocko]

This is an issue for the Advertising Standards Agency - complaints can be filed here and the more it receives, the more likely it is to act.

As LNER (2018) seems to be basing a significant marketing campaign on the false premise that it's somehow related to LNER (1922) and can take credit for its achievements, this is very much the sort of case where they'd take action.

 

[tspaul26]

This is an issue for the Advertising Standards Agency - complaints can be filed here and the more it receives, the more likely it is to act.

As LNER (2018) seems to be basing a significant marketing campaign on the false premise that it's somehow related to LNER (1922) and can take credit for its achievements, this is very much the sort of case where they'd take action.

I have already made a complaint to the ASA - not something I would normally do, but this press release is rather egregious in its claims!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I have already made a complaint to the ASA - not something I would normally do, but this press release is rather egregious in its claims!

It's possible (I don't know) that the TOC name and branding was agreed or even mandated by the DfT as part of the OLR contract.
OLR would not be doing something it had not agreed with the DfT.
I think the LNER brand is supposed to continue after OLR finishes, even if then in private hands.
DfT did the same with FirstGroup over GWR at the last franchise change (even the adoption of the original GWR's logo).
All the old railway company names and brands became government/BRB property on nationalisation, and were generally not allowed to be used commercially.
GNER happened to be an old one that was outside DfT control.

I don't think the government really wants to re-invent the Big 4, for a start it wouldn't work in Wales or Scotland now they are devolved.
One of the reasons privatisation took the form it did was the desire to go back to the fully competitive era that applied pre-grouping (LNWR, GE, LSWR etc).
Arguably, that went too far with the invention of several micro-TOCs like c2c and Chiltern, and "Cardiff Railway Company", which is now TfW.
The last attempt at restructuring, by the SRA, was for "one company at a London terminal", which gave us Greater Anglia and Greater Western - but was never applied to Euston or King's Cross, or to the major regional cities where multiple TOCs are commonplace.
Grayling invented East Coast Partnership and West Coast Partnership, leaving scope to add TOCs like GN and LM into the larger elements, but that never happened either.
Shapps said GBR will be regionally based, without ever defining what that meant (and is evidently on the back burner now anyway, given the financial crisis the railway is in).
The competition for GBR HQ is still in progress, but is pointless unless we know what GBR is and what it does.

Even now there is debate about the merits or otherwise of modern amalgamation and separation of the railway.
The competition regulator and no doubt the Tory party want the latter, whereas the integrationists and Labour want the former.
That's before any discussion about public or private ownership, and whether Network Rail is devolved or not.

 

[43096]

DfT did the same with FirstGroup over GWR at the last franchise change (even the adoption of the original GWR's logo).

I think that was a FGW initiative, as the First brand was toxic. They thought by slapping green paint/vinyl on everything, getting rid of the f-in-circle and using a pastiche of the original GWR logo (i.e. play the heritage card) that people wouldn't realise it was the same bunch running the show. It also happened to fit with the DfT wanting neutral brands.

 

[tspaul26]

It's possible (I don't know) that the TOC name and branding was agreed or even mandated by the DfT as part of the OLR contract.

It’s not the brand which is the issue: it’s the statement that it’s the same company which is (a) false in itself and (b) creates a misleading impression that ‘old LNER’s’ achievements can be attributed to ‘new LNER’.

 

[Master29]

Surely for the other 2 as well except GWR.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Surely for the other 2 as well except GWR.

Why except GWR?

 

[Bertie the bus]

I have already made a complaint to the ASA - not something I would normally do, but this press release is rather egregious in its claims!

It isn't even an advert. If you complained to the ASA every time a company put nonsense claims in a press release you wouldn't have time to do much else in life.

 

[Watershed]

It isn't even an advert

Not in the traditional sense, no. But it's still within the ASA's remit, and they will no doubt be linking to this article elsewhere, and generally trying to imply a non-existent connection with the old LNER.

If you complained to the ASA every time a company put nonsense claims in a press release you wouldn't have time to do much else in life.

Presumably you'd never bother reporting an advert to the ASA then? Frankly I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Just because @tspaul26 feels it's a good use of his time to report this to the ASA doesn't mean you will.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Presumably you'd never bother reporting an advert to the ASA then? Frankly I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Just because @tspaul26 feels it's a good use of his time to report this to the ASA doesn't mean you will.

I repeat - it isn't an advert. There is a mention of a calendar on their merchandising site but they are not making any incorrect or exaggerated claims about that. If a product or service is untruthfully advertised then that is obviously something that should be addressed. Linking new LNER to old LNER is not misleading advertising.

 

[Watershed]

I repeat - it isn't an advert. There is a mention of a calendar on their merchandising site but they are not making any incorrect or exaggerated claims about that. If a product or service is untruthfully advertised then that is onviously something that should be addressed. Linking new LNER to old LNER is not misleading advertising.

You're entitled to that view, but it won't change the ASA's decision.

 

[tspaul26]

It isn't even an advert.

I’m sorry, but it is an advert - albeit a less conventional one - and forms part of a wider campaign of intended marketing.

It even has a link to purchase merchandise on the page to which the material itself refers which is one of the indicia that something goes beyond a mere press release.

Advertisements are one of the areas with which I deal professionally in my job.

If you complained to the ASA every time a company put nonsense claims in a press release you wouldn't have time to do much else in life.

Just as well that I don’t complain to the ASA every time I see such nonsense, then.

 

[WizCastro197]

I repeat - it isn't an advert. There is a mention of a calendar on their merchandising site but they are not making any incorrect or exaggerated claims about that. If a product or service is untruthfully advertised then that is obviously something that should be addressed. Linking new LNER to old LNER is not misleading advertising.

This is what Oxford Dictionary say an Advertisement is:

a notice, picture or film telling people about a product, job or service

• a newspaper/television advertisement
• an online advertisement
• You can place an advertisement on a classifieds website.

I think that statement aligns pretty well with this definition.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Calendar or no calendar, they are advertising the LNER brand, with reference to the previous, and totally separate LNER company.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I think that statement aligns pretty well with this definition.

When it isn't advertising anything how do you come to the conclusion it aligns well with the definition of an advert?

You're entitled to that view, but it won't change the ASA's decision.

What possible good would come out of an adverse ASA ruling? Except for the calendar the only other thing mentioned is events that might interest enthusiasts. Would you rather they just cancelled them and ruined people's fun because they make a rather silly claim that 2023's LNER is the same company as 1923's?

 

[WizCastro197]

When it isn't advertising anything how do you come to the conclusion it aligns well with the definition of an advert?

What possible good would come out of an adverse ASA ruling? Except for the calendar the only other thing mentioned is events that might interest enthusiasts. Would you rather they just cancelled them and ruined people's fun because they make a rather silly claim that 2023's LNER is the same company as 1923's?

My conclusion comes straight from the definition I've quoted:

a notice, picture or film telling people about a product, job or service

It has told us a about a a product and service?

 

[Bertie the bus]

It has told us a about a a product and service?

No it hasn't. It has made a spurious claim about the company's history.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Companies buy and sell brands all the time, or license them out to third parties to use for a fee like Mr Branson's Virgin.
If the DfT wants to monetise or otherwise benefit from its stock of old railway names that it acquired for peanuts in 1948, is entirely up to them.
I assume OLR has an agreement on how to promote their services using a version of the old LNER branding.

Virgin painting its trains red (with white stripes initially) and GNER painting them blue, were both nods to their Big 4 past, without using identical liveries.
But today's incumbents have changed all that, with LNER now having the red trains (Virgin's original doing, I suppose), but Avanti has bypassed its heritage by going green.
Scotrail has gone dark blue, when you might have expected Caledonian blue on (at least some of) their trains.
Most marketing consultants these days want to develop new brands, giving us ONE and c2c for instance, not relying on what is now the distant past.

We still don't know what GBR, if it comes, will do to the collection of TOCs and how they are promoted.
I'm reminded of the unlikely names given to BR's Trainload Freight division before privatisation (Loadhaul, Transrail and Mainline), and also the initial trio of Roscos, named after the HQ buildings they inhabited (Eversholt, Angel and Porterbrook).

Network Rail is a bit of a problem - until the separation of Railtrack from BR in 1993 there was no separate brand for railway infrastructure.
Chances are it will disappear into the GBR regional structure.
Different again, HS1 does not run the rail services it enables, and nor will HS2, and neither is part of NR.
If the HS2 operator runs trains from the new Euston to Nottingham, Leeds and Newcastle as well as Birmingham and Manchester, how does that change the incumbent TOC branding?

 

[43096]

Virgin painting its trains red (with white stripes initially) and GNER painting them blue, were both nods to their Big 4 past, without using identical liveries.

They were nothing to do with the past and everything to do with the corporate image of their parent companies (Virgin Group and Sea Containers).

 

[yorkie]

What possible good would come out of an adverse ASA ruling? Except for the calendar the only other thing mentioned is events that might interest enthusiasts. Would you rather they just cancelled them and ruined people's fun because they make a rather silly claim that 2023's LNER is the same company as 1923's?

Ah, a strawman fallacy argument.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Ah, a strawman fallacy argument.

Would you care to explain what good can come of this complaint then? If this was a legal matter it would be called an abuse of process. The ASA exists to protect consumers, not pander to train spotters because they get annoyed by a company misrepresenting the history of the railway.

 

[Huntergreed]

Would you care to explain what good can come of this complaint then? If this was a legal matter it would be called an abuse of process. The ASA exists to protect consumers, not pander to train spotters because they get annoyed by a company misrepresenting the history of the railway.

It’s not a case of “misrepresentation”, it’s clearly fraudulent advertising, broadcasting false information and arguably an attempt to wrongly take credit for the work of other organisations, for financial and reputational gain.

It’s factually wrong and certainly morally wrong to attempt to seek commercial gain by claiming the work and achievements of others was the work of your own organisation (I suppose this could be considered a form of corporate plagiarism?)

Why on earth the producers thought they would get away with this without people noticing is beyond me!

 

[gabrielhj07]

I wonder how many people are being ‘fooled’ by this. I’m not sure that anyone seriously believes that LNER has existed as a continuous organisation since 1923.