I think they were using pendant type comparisons when promoting the positives of the SOS feature on the phone. Butler was droning on between annoying siren noises from his gob about his father paying £12 per month for his SOS service, and can you email in if you pay £12 or more for what is free on THIS phone. Now..that is a rather misleading (Shock!! Double Horror!!!!) sales technique on that point. Comparing apples with saffron…His father’s SOS service, I imagine, is where the user wears a pendant or similar device around his home that communicates with a monitoring service, that in turn, can then organise help by being alerted to various emergencies triggered by the pendant such as the user falling at home. Particularly with older people, their emergency may be one that means they cannot use a device themselves to get in touch with people, and need something that triggers automatically for them. Additionally, there may also be a speaker arrangement with a paid service where the user can speak to a human being immediately if in some sort of difficulty. Very different from having to press a button on a phone that then starts to ring your five named contacts - five of which may not even respond immediately and have no idea whatsoever of the nature of what has happened. And if Dad or Mum is a pain in ars..er fairly demanding, even if contacted this way, may well think ‘Oh God..using that SOS button again because the Freeview box is frozen etc..
You simply cannot use a price saving comparison of a rather basic emergency facility on the phone you are selling, to an organised, staff driven, emergency monitoring service. A completely disingenuous and inaccurate advertising comparison. You would complain to the advertising watchdog, but what’s the point? Nothing will be done if you did.