Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, a magazine ad and a digital poster, for Fairy washing-up liquid:
a. The TV ad featured a voice-over, which stated “Generations have trusted Fairy's cleaning power because it lasts a long, long time. And today it lasts twice as long as the next best-selling brand. That's Fairyconomy.” The ad showed an image of a bottle of Fairy and an equals sign, beside which two unbranded bottles of washing-up liquid were shown. On screen, text stated "Based on AC Nielsen data over the past 3 months".
b. The magazine ad featured text, which stated "Fairy lasts 2x longer than the next best-selling brand". The ad included an image of a bottle of Fairy and an equals sign, beside which two unbranded bottles of washing-up liquid were shown. Text beneath the image stated "Over the years, generations of families have trusted Fairy's cleaning power because it lasts a long, long time. And today it lasts twice as long as the next best-selling brand. That's FAIRYCONOMY." Small print stated "Based on AC Nielsen data past 3 months".
c. The digital poster was similar to ad (b), but did not include the text that appeared beneath the image.
Issue
Robert McBride Ltd challenged whether:
1. the claims that Fairy lasted twice as long as the next best-selling brand were misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the ads represented a fair comparison, because they believed the comparison did not take account of significant differences between the advertised product and the product they supplied; and
3. the ads were misleading because they omitted material information, such as the concentration of the liquid and the size and price of the bottle, which consumers needed to make an informed decision about the advertised product.
Response
1. Procter & Gamble UK (P&G) said that AC Nielsen volume share data demonstrated that Persil was the next best-selling brand. They said the claim was intended as a mileage claim, not a value claim. They said they used the Build Up Suds (BUS) test method to assess the suds’ mileage performance. They provided us with a copy of that test. They said the test replicated how UK consumers washed their dishes at home. Based on that test they believed the claims that Fairy lasted twice as long as the next best-selling brand could be substantiated.
Clearcast said P&G provided the BUS test to support the claim. They said that their consultant was content that the evidence provided supported the claim.
2. & 3. P&G believed the ads did not omit material information. They believed the concentration, in terms of the active ingredient, was not relevant information; rather they believed it was the effectiveness of the blend of ingredients that was relevant. They believed the images used in the ads made clear that the comparison was between a standard 433 ml bottle of Fairy and a 500 ml bottle of Persil. They believed those two sizes were the only ones in the respective ranges that would be visibly comparable in the manner depicted.
P&G believed the claim related to the mileage of the product, not the price. They therefore considered the ads did not need to refer to the price of the products. However, they said that based on the BUS test data, their product was two times better value than Persil.
Clearcast believed the ad presented a fair comparison. They said both products were used for the same purpose and met the same needs. They also said they had been provided with robust evidence, which their expert confirmed supported the mileage claim. They believed the price, size of the bottle and concentration of the liquid were not relevant to the claim that Fairy lasted twice as long as the next best-selling brand. They believed the claim was true, irrespective of those factors.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the ads showed images of the advertised product beside an equals sign and two unbranded bottles of washing-up liquid. The ads also made clear that Fairy lasted twice as long as the next best-selling brand and that the next best-selling brand was based on AC Nielsen volume share data, which we understood identified that brand as Persil. We considered consumers would understand from the shape and comparative size of the bottles that the images were of the 433 ml Fairy bottles and two 500 ml Persil bottles. In that context, we considered consumers would interpret the ads to mean that a standard 433 ml bottle of Fairy lasted as long as two standard 500 ml bottles of Persil when used in conditions representative of everyday use.
We sought expert advice on the robustness of the evidence provided by P&G. The expert considered the test reflected the practices of consumers and demonstrated that Fairy lasted at least twice as long as Persil.
On that basis, we considered the claims that Fairy lasted twice as long as the next best-selling brand had been substantiated. We therefore concluded that the ads did not breach the Code on this point.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but did not find it in breach. We investigated ads (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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 them in breach.
2. & 3. Not upheld
As identified in point 1, the ads made clear that Fairy lasted twice as long as the next best-selling brand. They also made clear that the next best-selling brand was based on AC Nielsen volume share data, which we understood identified that brand as Persil. Because the ads focused on the mileage of the products, we considered consumers would understand that the comparison was between the longevity of the Fairy product and that of the Persil product. Furthermore, we considered the images made clear that a standard 433 ml bottle of Fairy lasted as long as two standard 500 ml bottles of Persil. In comparing the mileage of the products, we considered the ads objectively compared a material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products. We considered information about the concentration of the liquid and the size and price of the bottle was not material information in relation to ads that made clear that the basis of the comparison was the mileage of the products.
Because the ads objectively compared a material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products and because they did not omit material information in respect of the mileage comparison, we concluded the ads did not breach the Code on points 2 and 3.
On points 2. and 3., we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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. and 3.35 3.35 Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price. (Comparisons), but did not find it in breach. We investigated ads (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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. and 3.35 3.35 Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price. (Comparisons) but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
