January has been a bad month for T-Mobile marketing, with the Better Business Bureau’s (BBB) National Advertising Division (NAD) recommending T-Mobile cease three marketing campaigns.

The NAD analyzes companies’ marketing claims, evaluating whether they are honest and accurately reflect what a company is delivering. Other companies can challenge a marketing claim, with the NAD investigating whether the complaint is valid. During the month of January, the NAD ruled against T-Mobile on three of its advertising claims.

The First Issue – January 9

The first claim involves T-Mobile’s claim that it offers 20% saves vs ‘the other big guys.’ Charter Communications challenged T-Mobile’s claims, with the NAD finding in favor of Charter, recommending T-Mobile modify or discontinue its marketing claim.

Charter argued the generic reference to “the other big guys” in the commercial included Spectrum Mobile. NAD determined that the claim “the other big guys” is ambiguous and it is not clear from the context of the ad which competitors are being compared, so prospective consumers who live within Spectrum’s limited nationwide footprint could reasonably interpret the challenged claim as against Spectrum Mobile.

NAD also examined whether prospective customers could save 20% by switching to T-Mobile compared to Spectrum Mobile.

NAD found that any savings for Spectrum customers would not be achieved in the first year due to a promotional offer that expires after one year. While the advertised claim touts “Families Can Save,” it was unclear if customers choosing T-Mobile would achieve 20% savings over Spectrum Mobile in the first year.

Therefore, NAD recommended T-Mobile discontinue or modify its advertising to make clear the company/(ies) that are the object of the comparison (“the other big guys”) in those markets where Spectrum Mobile also provides service.

The Second Issue – January 16

The second claim was brought by AT&T and involves the T-Mobile’s marketing claim that customers can “save on every plan vs the other big guys.” Unfortunately for T-Mobile, the NAD found that T-Mobile was not living up to its claim.

NAD determined that the T-Mobile claim “save on every plan vs. the other big guys” conveys the message that the price of a cell phone plan and the same number of lines at T-Mobile will be less than a comparable plan from both AT&T and Verizon. In making its cost comparison, T-Mobile included the cost of certain third-party streaming services, that are bundled with a T-Mobile plan, on top of the price of AT&T and Verizon wireless plans.

NAD also determined that the bundled streaming services are ancillary benefits to cellular phone plans that consumers are unlikely to expect are included when plan prices are being compared and that consumers are unlikely to understand that the savings comparison includes the value of streaming services bundled with a T-Mobile plan.

NAD concluded that the challenged claim was unsupported because in some cases the price of T-Mobile’s plan, when not considering streaming services, is more expensive than comparable plans at AT&T and Verizon.

The NAD recommends that T-Mobile discontinue its marketing campaign.

The Third Issue – January 16

The third claim comes from both AT&T and Verizon, with the two carriers taking issue with T-Mobile’s assertion that “families can save 20% every month versus AT&T and Verizon.”

At issue for NAD was whether T-Mobile’s commercial informs consumers that the 20% savings claim is calculated by including the cost of third-party streaming services on top of the price of AT&T’s and Verizon’s monthly wireless plans.

NAD determined that the context of the challenged commercial does not put consumers on notice that streaming services are connected with T-Mobile’s price comparison claim. Because the main message of the commercial is price savings, without reference to optional add-on streaming services, NAD determined that the small on-screen print disclosure that references streaming services as the basis of comparison is insufficient and contradicts the main message of the commercial.

T-Mobile’s Response

T-Mobile expressed its disappointment with all three decisions, but said it was only appealing the first on, on January 9. The company says it will abide by the other two decisions, evening saying it will “take NAD’s recommendations into account with respect to its future advertising,” in regard to the third decision.

T-Mobile Is No Longer the Un-carrier

T-Mobile built its current success on being the Un-carrier, the scrappy wireless provider that called out its bigger rivals for being more expensive, more opaque, and generally not caring for their customers.

Unfortunately, as the NAD’s decisions show, T-Mobile has largely become the very thing it once railed about, no longer offering plans that are substantially cheaper, and relying on opaque marketing and verbal slight of hand to make its plans seem like a better value than they really are.