First point is assuming the ring-fencing stands up. Unlike FSCS, which is a government-backed guarantee, you’re essentially taking it on faith that any company is telling the truth that any funds are ‘ring-fenced and can be returned in the event the company falls over’.
Put it this way, if it all goes tits-up and I’m the receiver, I would be looking very closely at any ‘ring-fenced’ money to see if the ring-fencing holds up or if I can break it and use the money to pay off secured creditors instead.
Second point is, in order to potentially have more money covered than the FSCS does, you’d have to have over £85,000 on a pre-paid card. I mean, that’s clearly ludicrous, isn’t it?
I completely agree. I was trying in my reply to find any way in which what they said could be true - in practice, however, Monzo’s backing feels a lot safer.
I appreciate what you’re doing, and certainly as you show it, Viola may not exactly be fibbing, as it were. But I think we’re well past the point when such contortions bring to mind a phrase involving lipstick and pigs.
What is bad about their campaign is that it uses Monzo’s credibility to create a name for themselves. Is it even legal to have such a campaign about a competitor?
There are now so many articles online comparing Monzo to Viola. I believe it is time for Monzo to post some sort of blog post to distance themselves from this.
So in the UK all advertising is ruled by the CAP Code of Practice - which stipulates rules to follow etc and will be the deciding factor in if an ad is misleading or not.
It’s not inherently problematic to name a competitor - you get this all the time with supermarkets and “better than the leading brand” or “cheaper than Tesco” etc. The main thing is that the claims are verifiable and accurate etc.
The rules governing the specifics of competitor ads are:
(Click to read it’s long)
So point 1) would be “is this a comparison and not just marketing puffery”,
If yes, then the areas of concern could be 1) are they Comparing like for like? (Prepaid vs current accounts, high fees vs no fees moslty), 2) could it cause confusion between the two brands - unlikely, 3) are the products meeting the same need - probably.
So I think the only ground would be along the lines of “they are implying their service is better that Monzo, however they have a significant cost structure not made clear on the advert that Monzo do not, and is not comparable, therefore misleading”.
At a stretch.
But to be honest, the worst that would happen is Viola get told to not run the campaign again.
I wouldn’t actually mind them using Monzos name if they were providing a similar product with notable improvements/benefits. Kinda like Aldi ads which show price comparisons to a basket shop in other supermarkets.
But this is just plain confusing. It will cost you money and it features less benefits
Does anyone know what Viola Black’s KYC requirements are?
I’m just interested in what ID they require (if any) as we’ve found the most difficult issue with providing accounts to the “unbanked” is complying with KYC for customers unlikely to have any government documentation etc.
It might be the fact that she somehow tries to sound posh and street at different times during the voice over. Not even going into the fact her voice is not the nicest to start with.
