ASA Adjudications Snapshot - May 2009

This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA

adjudications from May and a summary of the key issues considered

in the adjudications.

This month, the ASA ruled on complaints concerning issues

including green claims, "free" claims and medicinal

claims, claims of "purity" of food and drink and the

availability of products in a promotion.

To view the article in full, please see

below:

Full Article

This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA

adjudications from May and a summary of the key issues considered

in the adjudications.

This month, the ASA ruled on complaints concerning issues

including green claims, "free" claims and medicinal

claims, claims of "purity" of food and drink and the

availability of products in a promotion.

GREEN CLAIMS

1. Indesit Company Ltd t/a Hotpoint, 13 May 2009 (substantiation

   must be based on realistic use of product)

   FOOD AND DRINK

2. Arla Foods Ltd, 13 May 2009 (removal of black spots on a cow

   with term "purer", not racist)

3. Strix Ltd t/a Aqua Optima, 20 May 2009 (meaning of

   "pure")

   HEALTH AND BEAUTY

4. Duchy Originals Ltd, 6 May 2009 (medicinal claims and herbal

   remedies)

   AVAILABILITY

5. Tesco Stores Ltd, 6 May 2009 (reasonable steps to ensure

   availability)

   "FREE" CLAIMS

6. British Telecommunications Plc t/a BT, 13 May 2009 (reference

   to 0845 and 0870 numbers as "free")

   COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING

7. Gocompare.com Ltd, 13 May 2009 (high standard of

   substantiation required for competitive industry)

8. Tensar International Ltd, 20 May 2009 (evidence and implied

   comparisons)

   VIRAL MARKETING

9. Metrodome Group Plc, 6 May 2009 (viral email campaign,

   obtaining explicit consent of recipient)

   OTHER

10. The Ski & Outdoor Warehouse Ltd t/a Skiwear4Less, 13 May

    2009 (exploitation of a sensitive topic in connection of a sales

    promotion)

11. HomePride Ltd, 20 May 2009 (obvious humour diffused

    potential sexism)

    GREEN CLAIMS

1. Indesit Company Ltd t/a Hotpoint, 13 May 2009

   A national press ad for a fridge stated, "Save up to

   50% energy". Footnoted text at the bottom of the ad

   stated, "Saving based on a reduction in heat gain or cold

   air lost by opening one fridge door or one freezer

   door."

   Complaint/decision

   The complainant challenged whether the claim "Save up

   to 50%" misleadingly implied that the product could save

   up to 50% of the total energy used by a fridge freezer, rather than

   a saving in energy required to restore the internal temperature of

   a compartment once the door had been opened.

   The ASA upheld the challenge. The results of the research

   provided by Indesit were based on the assumption that the fridge

   freezer would be empty, which the ASA considered did not represent

   consumers' ordinary use of the product. Further, the ASA

   considered that consumers were likely to understand the claim in

   question to mean that the product used up to 50% less energy in

   total than comparable models. Although the footnoted text explained

   the basis of the claim, the ASA considered that the small print

   contradicted rather than qualified the body copy claim.

   This adjudication serves as a reminder to advertisers that the

   studies forming the substantiation of their claims must be a

   realistic and likely use of the product and also that, although

   footnotes can be useful, care must be taken to ensure they do not

   contradict the headline claim.

   FOOD AND DRINK

2. Arla Foods Ltd, 13 May 2009

   A TV ad for Cravendale milk showed an animated bull visiting a

   milk bar and angrily demanding milk. After it had drunk every

   bottle it was sent down a chute to the "Cravendale Purity

   Room" where it's black patches were gradually removed and

   it passed signs that stated, "Pure" and

   "Purer".

   A magazine ad depicted a black and white cow with text stating,

   "Fresh milk", underneath which was a sieve and a white

   cow. Text new to the white cow stated, "Only purer".

   Complaint/decision

   10 viewers complained that the ads could be interpreted as

   racist and therefore offensive.

   Arla Foods argued that the ads promoted a filtration process

   that removes bacterial impurities. The ASA agreed that viewers were

   unlikely to interpret the visual metaphor for this process as being

   racist, particularly due to the cartoon style of the ads. The ASA

   concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread

   offence and therefore rejected the challenges.

   This highlights that the threshold for the ASA considering that an

   ad causes "serious or widespread offence" is higher than

   simply showing that a number of people found the ad offensive.

3. Strix Ltd t/a Aqua Optima, 20 May 2009

   A radio ad compared plastic water bottles to a water filter. A

   voice-over stated that each plastic water bottle "Takes

   around 450 years to biodegrade" whereas "a

   single Aqua Optima water filter provides up to 200 litres of

   bottle-pure water without the bottle".

   Complaint/decision

   The National Hydration Council made four challenges, two of

   which related to the purity of Aqua Optima-filtered water. The

   National Hydration Council challenged whether the claim "A

   single Aqua Optima water filter provides up to 200 litres of

   bottle-pure water without the bottle" was misleading, by

   implying that filtered tap water was of the same purity and quality

   as bottled water. Secondly, it challenged whether the use of the

   term "pure" to describe filtered water was a

   breach of the Food Standards Authority Guidelines, as filtered

   water contained contaminants such as chlorine.

   The ASA rejected the first challenge: Strix provided evidence

   that filtered water and bottled water had a similar mineral content

   on average and therefore were comparable to bottled water, the ad

   was not misleading.

   However, the ASA upheld the second challenge. The ASA considered

   the FSA guidance on the term "pure" in

   "Criteria for the use of the terms Fresh, Pure, Natural

   etc. in food labelling" (10 July 2008). It is permitted

   to describe as "pure" a single ingredient food

   to which nothing had been added, and the ASA considered that

   consumers would expect the same. Tap water contained contaminants

   such as chlorine and therefore to describe filtered water as

   "pure" was in breach of FSA guidance. This

   description was therefore held to be misleading.

   This adjudication contains some helpful guidance as to what the ASA

   will accept in terms of claims as to the purity of a food or drink

   product and that it will often turn to industry guidance on the

   interpretation of particular phrases (see the

   ASA Adjudications Snapshot for April on

   "natural" claims).

   HEALTH AND BEAUTY

4. Duchy Originals Ltd, 6 May 2009

   A promotional email for a range of organic products stated,

   "Look no further than our new Echina-Relief tincture,

   which offers natural relief from cold and flu symptoms... Our

   ...