Cell C loses ‘Vodacom Red’ ASA substantiation ruling

"Red is faster" still bothers me. How exactly is the new brand faster? Does it use new technology? Or is it just a color change from blue?

Makes me sick that vodascum can squash Cell C, but they themselves make bull$hit claims like "red is faster" :wtf:
 
I swear. Some at vodacom must be ****ing everyone at the ASA.
 
So they couldnt rubbish the claims made by Cell C about their network all they could do is rubbish the source. Which now makes the "claims" false?
LOL.... what a load of BS.
That study was done by "Global mobile Suppliers Association" on Elisa Corporation. Is the "Global mobile Suppliers Association" not independant enough?
Or is this just a case of the ASA not knowing there *******s from their elbows? What does the ASA know about telecoms? How are they able to judge what is applicable, besides been told by Vodacom what is or isnt.
http://www.gsacom.com/index.php4
 
Last edited:
Qwikslver said:
I swear. Some at vodacom must be ****ing everyone at the ASA.
Click to expand...

Why? Because Cell C keep on losing?

Have you ever considered they constantly just come up with nonsense to submit to the ASA?

Look at the slide in the presentation. How do you use that to substantiate any claim? Ii seems Lars Googled for some stuff and tried to pass it off as a technical report.

I assume you read the previous ruling? How do you compare this information with the previous technical report by Cell C's expert? Do you think this graphic is more accurate than that report?

Reality is you've not read a single bit of the actual information, but you deem yourself qualified to comment on it. :rolleyes:

BTW, when Cell C won their complaints against MTN, did you post that Cell C must be ****ing someone at the ASA?

Thought not :rolleyes:
 
MyLeftFoot said:
So they couldnt rubbish the claims made by Cell C about their network all they could do is rubbish the source. Which now makes the "claims" false?
LOL.... what a load of BS.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you bothered to read the original ruling (so you don't come across as an idiot with such a comment), you would have known that Cell C's own technical expert rubbished Cell C's claims. And that was a proper report. This is a marketing slide.

You obviously have not read anything but seem to believe you're qualified to comment. You're only showing your ignorance. :rolleyes:

Get the facts and then comment. But shooting from the hip is just going to target your left foot.
 
I got RED, I think I know why VoduScum went that way - All I see the whole day is RED!

For some reason, no matter where I work, I get around 75 - 200 disconnections a day while I work on my 3G.

Dont know why, but it is F**** me around!
 
Advertising should be honest & truthful. If its also amusing or educational that's a bonus and stands a chance of being remembered.

OTOH, some adverts are so bad they are also memorable. :whistle:

As someone who views product claims with a very jaundiced eye - I know that (personally, in my location) Cell C is the fastest, and for 5Gig x12, prepaid, SIM only - they are the cheapest. (no contract nonsense either).

The Vodacom 2+2 offer isn't a full competitive response to Cell C because its not available until 1MAY, will cease to be be available on 30JUN, requires you to sign a contract (credit - vetting?) and exposes the purchaser to unexpected cost if the exceed 2Gig. The 2gig NightOwl is also no benefit for me.

So am I bothered about Vodacom's claims against Cell C? Has Cell C mislead me? no not at all. Rather I see this as an attempt by Vodacom to muddy the water for incredibly dense consumers who have an attention span of a gnat - and hope they think 2+2 is more. :D
 
TwoCents1000 said:
Actually, if you bothered to read the original ruling (so you don't come across as an idiot with such a comment), you would have known that Cell C's own technical expert rubbished Cell C's claims. And that was a proper report. This is a marketing slide.

You obviously have not read anything but seem to believe you're qualified to comment. You're only showing your ignorance. :rolleyes:

Get the facts and then comment. But shooting from the hip is just going to target your left foot.
Click to expand...

Before you start patting yourself on the back. I read this article and im refering to this ruling. So before you are start mouthing off in future i suggest you invest in some grade 4 comprehension classes... Where is the original ruling?
 
Last edited:
MyLeftFoot said:
Before you start patting yourself on the back. I read what was on this site not the original ruling. Where is this original ruling you are talking about?
As far as i see in the article their is only mention of vc rubbishing the claims.
Click to expand...

+1. Obviously a Vodacom fanboy (most likely working for them). Wonder who's the real idiot for attacking people in this thread for details not conveyed in this article.
 
TwoCents1000 said:
Why? Because Cell C keep on losing?

Have you ever considered they constantly just come up with nonsense to submit to the ASA?

Look at the slide in the presentation. How do you use that to substantiate any claim? Ii seems Lars Googled for some stuff and tried to pass it off as a technical report.

I assume you read the previous ruling? How do you compare this information with the previous technical report by Cell C's expert? Do you think this graphic is more accurate than that report?

Reality is you've not read a single bit of the actual information, but you deem yourself qualified to comment on it. :rolleyes:

BTW, when Cell C won their complaints against MTN, did you post that Cell C must be ****ing someone at the ASA?

Thought not :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have not read the report but I am sure that a marketing slide would be a snapshot of the technical report. If there is faults in the report would VC not highlight those faults as the flaws in the report rather than the source of the findings. IMO when people attack where a technical report was composed or done rather than the findings of the report it means the report cannot be that far from the truth
 
Cell C's Black Network is Fastest

Cell C should launch an ad calling their network "Black is Fastest"
 
ISP cash cow said:
I have not read the report but I am sure that a marketing slide would be a snapshot of the technical report. If there is faults in the report would VC not highlight those faults as the flaws in the report rather than the source of the findings. IMO when people attack where a technical report was composed or done rather than the findings of the report it means the report cannot be that far from the truth
Click to expand...

+1
@TwoCents1000 you keep talking about this report by a Cell C expert. I just scanned the ruling and i only see an independant expert used by the ASA who they say has no links to Cell C. So which ruling are you reading or where does it say in the ruling that the Cell C expert rubbishes it?
He does say that the report he used showed 2 to 4 times increase and not 3 to 5 times which Cell C states.
http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=5522

this seems to be the reports Lars "Googled"
http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_272.php4
http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_252.php4
 
Last edited:
Vodacom was not happy about some of Cell C’s claims, submitting to the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) that Cell C should substantiate their claims regarding being SA’s number one network, having the fastest broadband speeds in the country and having 3 to 5 times the coverage per tower.
Click to expand...

Vodacom added that they currently have 4300 3G towers covering 87% of the South African population, which is significantly more than Cell C’s 1550 3G base stations with 43% population coverage.
Click to expand...

Did they somehow not realize that the actual claim is about "coverage PER TOWER" and not POPULATION coverage? Or is Red just generally brain dead.

Hmm, now there's a Red slogan I can live with:

Red is brain dead​
 
i guess asa is on vc's payroll? thats the only explanation for many of the rulings recently.

my new slogan for cellc - get into black, its faster!

i dont like red. and after using vc business bonded adsl, i dont like them one bit. they bleed the consumer dry for every buck.

cellc must really be giving vc nightmares...

its a known fact that fast red vechiles causes the most accidents!
 
Last edited:
mika1000 said:
its a known fact that fast red vechiles causes the most accidents!
Click to expand...

Yea, they have done studies into why that is the case, and it is because people who choose to buy red cars (on average) are more aggressive by nature and tend to drive faster.
So red cars cause more accidents because they are driven faster...

[I'm not supporting VC or Cell C here, i just think its ironic and funny that your analogy implies red is faster when you are clearly trying to insult them VC]
 
Last edited:
mika1000 said:
i guess asa is on vc's payroll? thats the only explanation for many of the rulings recently.
Click to expand...
ASA rulings over the last 12 months:
- against Cell C = 6
- against VC = 8

The question is why ASA want to censure Cell C for repeated transgressions when VC transgress more frequently than them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X