Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for KPI Gaming Consultants (www.kpigc.com), seen in March 2016, featured:
a. text that stated “We are a London based UK gaming consultancy with over 50 years combined experience within our team”;
b. biography profiles for two employees, Henry Ball and Terrence Quiroz;
c. text that stated “KPIGC [KPI Gaming Consultants] has been enriching businesses from multiple jurisdictions and from various backgrounds whether big or small, new or established since 2006”; and
d. an unattributed testimonial that stated, “.... and not only did they bring down our casino CPA to under £80 but also provided amazing insight into how we could manage our customers once through the door. Acquisition and retention is one of their specialities which is why we still use them today".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. The claims in ads (a) and (b) were misleading and could be substantiated, as they understood that the company had only one employee, and that they did not have 50 years of experience in the gaming industry;
2. The claim in ad (c) was misleading and could be substantiated, as they understood that the company had only been in operation since January 2015; and
3. The claim in ad (d) was misleading and could be substantiated, as they understood that the average CPA for a casino-based brand was around £120.
Response
KPI Gaming Consultants stated that they could prove that their team had vast experience and that they had provided companies with CPAs as low as £80, but did not provide any evidence to support their claims. They also stated that they had made changes to their website to remove some of the claims raised in the complaint.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “We are a London based UK gaming consultancy with over 50 years combined experience within our team” to mean that the company had multiple employees whose combined experience in the gaming industry totalled more than 50 years. While we acknowledged that the advertiser had removed the reference to the specific number of years of combined experience, we noted that the website still referred to “combined expertise”. We also noted that the complainant had challenged that the claim was misleading as they understood that the company had only one employee. Furthermore, we noted that the photos used to illustrate the biographies of Henry Ball and Terrence Quiroz were stock photos that were publicly available online. As we had not seen documentary evidence to support the claims about KPI Gaming Consultants’ employees and their experience, we concluded that they had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that basis, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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 consumers would understand the claim “KPIGC has been enriching businesses from multiple jurisdictions and from various backgrounds whether big or small, new or established since 2006” to indicate that the company had been operating since 2006. We considered that this claim was likely to be viewed by consumers as objective, and as we had not seen any documentary evidence to support it, we concluded that it had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that basis, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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. Upheld
We considered that, although it was unattributed, claim (d) was likely to be regarded by consumers as a client testimonial due to the way it was presented. The CAP Code states that claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer. We considered that “not only did they bring down our casino CPA to under £80” was an objective claim and as such we expected the advertiser to hold evidence to support it. As we had not seen any documentary evidence to support the claim, we concluded that it had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that basis, ad (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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),
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), and
3.47
3.47
Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer.
(Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The claims must not appear again in the forms complained about. We told KPI Gaming Consultants not to make claims about their business unless they held evidence to substantiate them.
