Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and one was Not Upheld.
Ad description
A regional press ad that appeared in various publications, opposing wind turbines, stated "Is this the future for Scotland?" and featured an image of wind turbines overlooking a motorway that was labelled "Image taken in California (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)". Underneath text stated "Tourism will suffer and the beauty of your country is in jeopardy! This is the same mind that backed the release of terrorist al-Megrahi, ‘for humane reasons’ --- after he ruthlessly killed 270 people on Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. Take action. Write, demonstrate and protest Alex Salmond”. An e-mail address was provided and a photograph of Alex Salmond, the current First Minister of Scotland, giving the thumbs-up gesture, alongside the Trump International Golf Links Scotland logo.
Issue
Twenty-one complainants, including Patrick Harvie, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and Yes2Wind.com, challenged whether:
1. the claim "Tourism will suffer and the beauty of your country is in jeopardy" could be substantiated;
2. the image of the wind turbines overlooking an American freeway was misleading, because it was unrepresentative of any proposed windfarms in Scotland; and
3. the references to al-Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing were inappropriate and likely to cause offence.
Response
Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd (TIGCS) said they obtained clearance from the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) for the ad. They believed that the ASA was therefore prevented, under law, from considering or ruling adversely against it. They referred to a case from 1921 which they said supported this.
1. & 2. They submitted a report, published in March 2008, which they said made clear that wind farms located close to tourist resorts would inevitably deter tourists and harm tourism and that this was only one example of other findings available. They said the ASA could do their own research and that enough time had gone by to establish, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this was the case. They also submitted a series of slides produced by Communities Against Turbines Scotland (CATS), that supported a speech given by a hotelier to a tourism seminar hosted by the Scottish Tourism Alliance. They said wind farms detracted from the beauty of any landscape and that this was a subjective opinion.
3. They said Mr Megrahi was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment and the Government led by the First Minister took a decision to release Mr Megrahi to his freedom in Libya. They also said that the decision was controversial, attracted a whole range of views and was the same Government that had made a vigorous pro-wind policy. They believed that it was impossible to contradict these facts, and therefore impossible to see how offence could be taken at the statement.
Assessment
The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP's) Copy Advice team provided advice to TIGCS prior to publication. The advice given in relation to the published ad was that it seemed to comply with the CAP Code and that, if the advertiser had factual evidence to support the claims, the ASA was unlikely to uphold complaints against it. It also made clear that the advice was given in good faith and did not bind CAP or the ASA, both of which might require the advertiser to provide evidence to substantiate their claims at a later date.
1. Upheld
The ASA received complaints that the claim "Tourism will suffer and the beauty of your country is in jeopardy" could not be substantiated. Whilst we considered that the claim "the beauty of your country is in jeopardy" was a subjective claim that did not require substantiation, we considered that the claim "tourism will suffer" was an objective statement and therefore needed to be substantiated with robust evidence that demonstrated that tourism in Scotland would significantly suffer. The slides related to a conference titled "The Destruction of Rural Tourism in Scotland" by CATS, an anti-wind campaign group. However, we did not consider that this supported the claim "tourism will suffer". The report submitted looked into the economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish Tourism and consisted of five sections of research, including a literature review, an intercept study, a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) study, an internet survey and an economic multiplier analysis.
The results demonstrated a strong hostility to developments at the planning stage and a loss of value to a significant number of individuals. Based on monthly figures of traffic flows, between 81% and 98% of tourists would see a wind farm or stay in a room with a view of a wind farm at a time when it was visible and, according to a survey, wind farms led to a serious decline in value. However, the results also indicated that when respondents were unaware that a farm had been extended, the drop in value of the extension was relatively small. There was little evidence of a negative effect and, over time, hostility to wind farms lessened and they became an accepted and even valued part of the scenery. Of those who had seen a wind farm, 99% suggested that the experience would not have any affect and only 17% claimed that they were less likely to visit if more wind farms were built. The conclusion stated that, while a concentration of wind farms might have serious implications for a limited number of individual households, the impact of wind farms on Scottish tourism was very small. Because we had not received evidence that tourism would significantly suffer as a result of wind farms in Scotland we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation).
2. Upheld
We considered that the image, alongside the claim "Tourism will suffer and the beauty of your country is in jeopardy", implied that the wind turbines overlooking an American freeway was representative of a proposed wind farm in Scotland. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that was the case we concluded that it was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation).
3. Not upheld
We considered that the claim "This is the same mind that backed the release of terrorist al-Megrahi, ‘for humane reasons’ --- after he ruthlessly killed 270 people on Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie" drew attention to the Lockerbie bombing in order to comment on Alex Salmon's policies on renewable energies. However, we also considered that readers were likely to find this distasteful, rather than offensive, and therefore concluded that the claim did not breach the Code.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
4.2
4.2
Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention.
and
4.3
4.3
References to anyone who is dead must be handled with particular care to avoid causing offence or distress.
(Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd not to make claims unless they could be substantiated with robust evidence and not to use misleadingly imagery.
