Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
An ad for tea bags featured Johnny Vegas and a puppet monkey in a kitchen. Johnny Vegas said, "Monkey, you know how you always say, 'there's no other tea to beat PG' … What if you're lying?" The monkey made two cups of tea, one with a pyramid bag and one with a round bag and stated, "PG Tips uses pyramid bags, so if we test one against a regular tea bag ... you'll see the tea has got more room to move, freeing the great fresh taste for a perfect cuppa."
Issue
Tata Global Beverages challenged whether:
1. the visual demonstration was misleading and exaggerated the capability and performance of the advertised product;
2. the claim "the tea has more room to move freeing the great fresh taste" was misleading and could be substantiated because they believed it implied that, by virtue of its shape, the teabag would produce a better tasting product; and
3. the comparison with a round teabag denigrated to Tata's brand "Tetley" because they believed that they were an identifiable competitor and that the ad portrayed the brand in a negative light.
Response
1. & 2. Unilever UK Ltd said the ad aimed to communicate the benefits of the pyramid bag and the taste of PG tips tea. They said that the visual demonstration demonstrated the difference the pyramid bag could make. They stated that the infusion speed of the tea, demonstrated by the colour, was of interest to the consumer and their research showed that the majority of consumers brewed their tea to colour. They said the visual demonstration was intended to imitate consumer behaviour when making tea. They said that the best infusion was achieved when using loose tea because the tea was able to move unrestricted in the cup and that the addition of a teabag impacted the brewing process.
They provided results of a test, which recorded the impact that different-shaped teabags, with the same kind and amount of tea, had on the infusion process after 40 seconds and two minutes of brewing. They had chosen those times because their research showed the majority of consumers brewed their tea for that amount of time. They said the results demonstrated that the pyramid tea bag had significantly greater brewing efficiency. They also provided the results of a test, performed in July 2013, which showed the PG Tips pyramid teabag had a greater brewing efficiency than the round Tetley teabag. They said that those tests substantiated the claim "freeing the great taste". They explained that a teabag of 3.125 g was used because that was the standard UK teabag weight. They also said they had measured the volume of space available for tea to move around in a round teabag and in a pyramid teabag. They said that, in terms of volume, the pyramid teabag had 77% more room to move. They said that, according to their mathematical modelling, the pyramid teabag had 99% more room to move.
3. Unilever said that they did not believe the ad was making a direct comparison with Tetley. They pointed out that no other tea brand was mentioned or shown, and the claim did not expressly refer to the superiority of taste. They said that claim "freeing the great fresh taste for a perfect cuppa" was intended to refer only to the taste of PG tips and, because there was more room for the tea to move, the taste was easy to infuse. They pointed out that Tetley also owned a teabag range that was pyramid-shaped. They said that, according to sales data provided by a research organisation, 30.8% of regular teabags sold in the UK were round. They said they did a comparison with the round shape because it had the largest share of the market. They pointed out that the voice-over referred to the "regular teabag", which emphasised it as the most commonly bought shape. They said, although Tetley represented 50% of the 30.8% round teabag market, they did not consider the round teabag to be identifiable as Tetley.
Clearcast reiterated and supported the points made by Unilever. They said they had told Unilever to ensure the visual demonstration was accurate. They also said that taste was subjective and Unilever had evidence to show that the tea moved more freely. They said they did not believe the ad denigrated the Tetley branded for the reasons outlined by Unilever.
Assessment
The ASA noted Tata Global Beverages provided their own evidence to demonstrate that there was no difference between the brewing efficiency of a pyramid and round teabag.
1. Not upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the visual demonstration to be a representation of a simple consumer experiment and would not interpret it as a representation of a detailed scientific test. We considered consumers would interpret the demonstration to mean that, in general, a pyramid teabag was more efficient at brewing tea than a round teabag. Unilever provided test results which showed that the infusion of tea, at 40 seconds and two minutes into brewing, was greater when using a pyramid teabag than when using a round teabag. We therefore concluded that the ad did not exaggerate the capability and performance of the advertised product and was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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) and
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the claim "the tea has more room to move freeing the great fresh taste" to mean that the shape of the teabag would allow more tea, and therefore taste, to be released. Unilever provided relevant modelling and measurements to demonstrate that the tea in the pyramid teabag would have more room to move, and, as mentioned in point 1, Unilever had provided evidence to demonstrate that the pyramid teabag had a greater brewing efficiency than the round teabag. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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) and
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach
3. Not upheld
We understood that several brands of teabags on the market were round in shape. While a large portion of round teabags were owned by Tetley, we considered that consumers would not immediately identify a round teabag as being a Tetley teabag. Because we considered that the comparison was not made with an identifiable competitor, we concluded that the ad did not denigrate Tetley.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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),
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Qualification),
3.33
3.33
Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service.
(Comparisons with identifiable competitions) and
3.42
3.42
Advertisements must not discredit or denigrate another product, advertiser or advertisement or a trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark.
(Imitation and Degradation), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
BCAP Code
3.1 3.12 3.2 3.33 3.38 3.42 3.9
