Ad description
A poster, seen on the Tyne and Wear Metro, featured photos of a number of women's faces and text that stated "AROUND 120,000 WOMEN ARE STALKED EACH YEAR ... YOU ARE NOT ALONE SPEAK OUT ABOUT STALKING". Further text in a graphic in the top right-hand corner stated "STOP VIOLENCE against women and girls". The ad included directions for those seeking help or advice.
Issue
One complainant challenged whether the claim "Around 120,000 women are stalked each year" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Northumbria Police explained that the figure of 120,000 had been sourced from the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Stalking Law Reform, which was published in February 2012. They highlighted that the report stated "The British Crime Survey in 2006 estimated that up to 120,000 people experience stalking in any one year". Whilst Northumbria Police acknowledged that the figure did not relate solely to women, they provided additional information, which they believed showed that the figure of 120,000 was conservative. Those documents included a summary of the findings relating to domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey (BCS), which they said showed 24% of women had suffered stalking. Further, they provided reports relating to the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW; the replacement of the BCS) in 2010/11 which they believed showed that 18.1% of those women surveyed had been a victim of stalking. They also believed that the CSEW relating to 2011/12 showed that 4.2% of those surveyed had been stalked. They said, when considered in relation to the relevant census data, 120,000 was clearly an underestimate, and was not misleading in the context of a public awareness campaign.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA understood that Northumbria Police had sourced the figure of 120,000 from a 2012 Parliamentary Report. We noted, however, that that report referred to the 2006 British Crime Survey (covering England and Wales only), and was the total number of people who had been victims of stalking, not solely women.
We reviewed the documents supplied and noted that Northumbria Police had often quoted statistics related to those women who had been the victim of stalking at any point in their life since the age of 16. However, data from the BCS report 2004/05 showed that 9% of female respondents said they had been the victim of stalking in the last 12 months. Similarly, 4.4%, 4.1% and 4.2% of the female respondents had reported being the victim of stalking in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 respectively. We also understood that those recent CSEWs included estimates of how many women, 16 to 59 years of age, in England and Wales, had been the victim of stalking in the previous year, by multiplying the prevalence rate, established by the survey results, by the most relevant population figures, sourced from the Office of National Statistics. We noted that according to the CSEWs carried out in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12, those estimates were 704,000, 669,000 and 686,000 respectively. We therefore considered that the most recent CSEW data indicated that the number of women in England and Wales who were stalked each year was significantly higher than the 120,000 referenced in the ad.
We noted that the purpose of the ad was to alert consumers to the prevalence of stalking of women, and encourage those women who might currently be the victim of stalking, or individuals who had concerns regarding the welfare of a female friend or relative, to seek advice or help. We also considered that the ad sought to garner support for the "STOP VIOLENCE against women and girls" campaign more generally. We acknowledged that the figure of 120,000 was not derived from a single source, but noted that it under-represented the likely number of women who were victims of stalking. In addition, whilst we noted the ad did not explicitly state that the figure related to women in England and Wales, we understood that even if a consumer believed it related to female victims in the UK or Britain, it would still be a large under-estimate. In light of that, we considered that consumers were unlikely to have reacted or responded to the ad differently had it included a higher figure or made the basis of the claim clearer. Because the purpose of the ad was to promote an awareness campaign and the figure was a very conservative estimate, we concluded that it was not materially misleading.
We investigated the ad under 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
