Ad description
Two ads for Fussy Ltd, a deodorant company:
a. An Instagram post published by the @getfussy account, on 21 December 2023, featured an image of a deodorant product with green, red and black packaging called ‘Mynx’. A caption on the post stated “£733 million is wasted on unwanted gifts each year. So what do you think to a sustainable alternative to the UK’s top Christmas selling gift set? Disclaimer: Please note, this is not a real product nor is it based or associated with anything real. It’s like imagining a unicorn riding a rainbow made of jelly beans – delightful, but definitely not happening. #itsajoke #mynxlondon #smelllikeamynx #christmasgiftpack”.
b. A LinkedIn post by Fussy’s CEO and founder Matt Kennedy, published on 24 December 2023, featured the same image in ad (a). A caption on the post stated “£733 million is wasted on unwanted gifts each year. So how about a refillable version of the UK’s […] most unwanted […] Christmas giftpack? #mynxlondon #smelllikeamynx #christmasgiftpack. All views my own”.
Issue
Unilever UK Ltd, who owned and manufactured Lynx deodorant products, which they believed were alluded to in the ads, challenged whether the ads discredited or denigrated another product.Response
Fussy Ltd said the ads were intended to be editorial social media posts and they had not promoted a real product. They said the purpose of the ads was to ask their customers whether they should launch a new refillable deodorant product, called ‘Mynx’.
They said they were unable to provide specific evidence which claimed £733m was wasted on unwanted Christmas gifts each year, but provided links to two articles which stated significant amounts of money were unnecessarily spent on presents at Christmas time.
They said the fictional Mynx product in the ads was not intended to allude to Lynx products, but acknowledged consumers may have interpreted it in that manner. They said they would remove the posts.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated marketing communications that included a comparison with an identifiable competitor must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products. It also stated that marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product or marketer. The rule applied irrespective of whether or not a claim was true, if it appeared in a comparative advertisement and was expressed in terms which were insulting, derogatory or demeaning. Ads which included comparisons with competitors which went beyond a robust and objective comparison of their products or services risked breaching that rule.
The ASA acknowledged that the image featured in both ads (a) and (b) was of a fictitious deodorant product given the name ‘Mynx’. We considered that the purpose of the fictional product was to promote Fussy, particularly in relation to the implied claim that they were a sustainable deodorant brand. Therefore, although the Mynx product was not real, ad (a), which was posted on Fussy’s official Instagram account, and ad (b), which was posted on LinkedIn by the company’s CEO, promoted the Fussy brand and fell within the remit of the CAP Code.
We considered consumers would immediately recognise that the font, the colour scheme and the design of the Mynx branding was almost identical to the branding for Lynx deodorant products. We also considered consumers would understand that the fictional name Mynx was very similar to Lynx and was therefore an indirect reference to it. We considered that because the fictional product was readily recognisable as being a reference to Lynx, both posts included a comparison with an identifiable competitor.Ad (a) featured text which stated “£733 million is wasted on unwanted gifts each year. So what do you think to a sustainable alternative to the UK’s top Christmas selling gift set?”. Ad (b) featured text which stated “a sustainable alternative to the UK’s top Christmas selling gift set”, and that the Mynx product was “a refillable version of the UK’s most sold, most unwanted and most unsustainable Christmas giftpack”.
We considered the terms “unwanted gifts” and “most unwanted” in that context to be pejorative comments which suggested Lynx products were of lower value and less desirable in comparison to its competitor products including Fussy. We also considered the word Mynx, in reference to Lynx, was a derogatory term which consumers would understand referred to a flirtatious person who enjoyed creating trouble for others. We therefore considered that those comments, which gave the impression that Lynx deodorant products were of little value, went beyond a robust and objective comparison between Lynx and Fussy deodorants.
For those reasons, we considered ads (a) and (b) discredited and denigrated the Lynx brand and therefore breached the Code.The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.35 (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors) and 3.42 (Imitation and Denigration).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Fussy Ltd to ensure their future ads did not discredit or denigrate the Lynx brand or their other competitors’ products.
