Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
The home page of the website www.slipsilkpillowcase.co.uk promoting silk products from Slipsilk, seen in August 2019 included the text “THE ORIGINAL AND THE BEST SINCE 2004” at the top of the page. Additional text stated “LABORATORY TESTED…43% less friction* In laboratory testing slipsilk™ was shown to absorb significantly less face cream and create 43% less friction on average, verses cotton pillowcases*”. Text at the bottom of the page stated “Tested by an independent third party lab. Compared to widely available cotton pillowcases with a 220-360 thread count”.
Issue
Silkskin Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “The original and the best since 2004”; and
2. “Laboratory tested 43% less friction”.
Response
1. Slip Enterprises Pty Ltd t/a Slipsilk said that they registered their business name ‘Slip’ and the domain name slipslip.com in 2004. They provided copies of their company incorporation certificate and receipts of sales from the website from 2004. In terms of the claim ‘The Original’, they said that at the point they launched in 2004 they were unique in providing a luxury silk pillowcase that was packaged and marketed as a beauty product. At that time, other competitors across the market relied on satin or sateen which typically contained synthetic fibres and did not have the properties of silk. However, since then other more similar products have entered the market. They said that in order to distinguish Slipsilk products, they labelled their product as the ‘original’. They had developed a specially commissioned silk, called ‘Slipsilk’ which had a combination of shine, thickness and durability. They said that the claim “the best” was an expression of their pride in the brand and it was not intended to be viewed as an objective claim. They pointed to the fact that the claim in the ad was not linked to any particular product attributes.
2. With regards to the claim “Laboratory tested 43% less friction”, Slipsilk had carried out independent lab testing which compared Slipsilk pillowcases to a number of cotton pillowcases with various thread counts. They provided copies of test data which showed results from friction and drag testing carried out on the Slipsilk pillowcase when compared with cotton pillowcases. The friction and testing had been carried out on deer skin samples. The laboratory explained that tanned animal skin was a suitable substitute for human skin due to its similarity in chemical makeup and surface, and that there was no industry standard protocol that could assess friction between a textile and human skin. They provided a copy of a peer reviewed article which stated that tanned deerskin was commonly used as a human skin substitute in research and testing and it simulated the mechanical and frictional contact behaviour of human skin. The results showed that Slipsilk reduced friction or drag against skin when both lying still and moving when compared with cotton pillowcases.
Assessment
1.Not upheld
The ASA understood that the complainant, who said their own pure silk pillowcase brand was established in 2005, did not believe that Slipsilk had been trading since 2004 and therefore challenged the claim “the original and the best since 2004” on that basis. We considered consumers would understand the references in the claim to “the original … since 2004” to be an objective claim that Slipsilk were the first company to produce and sell pure silk pillowcases targeted specifically at the beauty market, and that they began in 2004 and had been trading continuously since then. However, we considered that in the context of the overall claim the reference to “the best” would be understood as a subjective expression of Slipsilk’s opinion about their product and was therefore not capable of objective substantiation. Slipsilk had provided evidence of their company’s origin and position within the market, including product receipts and evidence of the registration of their company name and a domain name dated from 2004. We considered that this was sufficient evidence that the company had been in existence and was operating in 2004, prior to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On that point we investigated the claim under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications 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 it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “LABORATORY TESTED…43% less friction* In laboratory testing slipsilk™ was shown to … create 43% less friction on average, verses cotton pillowcases” to mean that Slipsilk’s pillowcases created 43% less friction than cotton pillowcases. Text at the foot of the page clarified that the testing had been against “widely available cotton pillowcases with a 220-360 thread count”. Slipsilk had provided details of the testing carried out by an independent laboratory. Three units each of three samples of cotton pillowcases had been tested for their static and kinetic coefficients of friction against tanned deerskin, as had Slipsilk’s own pillowcases. The difference between the average coefficients of friction (for both static and kinetic friction) for the cotton samples and Slipsilk was 45%. We considered that the evidence demonstrated that the methodology used was appropriate and that it substantiated the claim in the ad. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On that point we investigated the claim under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications 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 it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
