Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
An independent Liverpool FC website, www.liverpool-kop.com, featured text on their "Advertise" page that stated "*Highest ranked independent (Non forum-based)** LFC site on the net ... ** Forum-based websites (i.e. message-boards) are always going to have high visitor numbers (depending on niche). It's much harder for original content sites to generate and maintain a large audience".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "*Highest ranked independent (Non forum-based)** LFC site on the net" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. the comparative claim was verifiable.
Response
Liverpool-Kop.com stated that the claim "*Highest ranked independent (Non forum-based)** LFC site on the net" was factually correct in regards to being a non-forum based Liverpool F.C. website and was based on data collected by Alexa Internet.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that Liverpool-Kop.com was a non-forum Liverpool F.C. website, which featured articles covering recent developments on the football team. However, we considered that the claim did not make sufficiently clear the basis on which it was made and implied that the ranking was made against all other relevant Liverpool F.C. websites. We noted that Liverpool-Kop.com stated that they based the claim on Alexa rankings, but did not provide evidence to show that that was the case. Therefore, we concluded that the claim "*Highest ranked independent (Non forum-based)** LFC site on the net" had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
2. Upheld
We considered that the claim would be understood as a comparison between Liverpool-Kop.com and other relevant websites, and that it was a comparison with identifiable competitors. The CAP Code required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of the product. Therefore, because the basis of the comparison had not been verified we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code rules 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. and 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Liverpool-Kop.com not to make the claim "*Highest ranked independent (Non forum-based)** LFC site on the net" in their future advertising unless they possessed robust documentary evidence.
