Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.swann.com, for the surveillance product company Swann Communications, seen 17 November 2019, included a reviews page. The page included the heading “Product Reviews” below which the ad showed five stars with four and a half stars filled in, followed by text which stated “2205 reviews”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the reviews were genuine, because they did not believe the reviews were written by consumers; and
2. the ad was misleading, because they believed the advertiser did not publish negative reviews or include them in its overall star ratings.
Response
1. Swann Communications (Europe) Ltd said the product reviews on their website were gathered from post-purchase emails to customers who had bought a product on their website during the previous two years and included good and bad reviews. For a sample of the reviews, they provided screenshots of the online payment system which contained details of the product purchased. Swann Communications also provided screenshots of the corresponding reviews those customers had submitted, which included email addresses and order numbers which corresponded to the online order forms.
2. Swann Communications said that they exercised moderation policy for their reviews such that some were not published because they were offensive or contained swearing, contained errors (such as referencing the wrong product entirely), or related to shipping or customer service enquiries (and therefore not relevant for a product review). They said those reviews were generally one or two star by their nature. Swann Communications provided screenshots which showed reviews which had been prevented from appearing due to their moderation policy.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would expect the reviews featured on the website to be the genuine views of customers who had purchased their products. The complainant raised concern about the reviews firstly because they were not able to leave a review by visiting the website.
Swann Communications explained that the reviews were gathered from customers who replied to a post-purchase email sent by them to customers who had purchased a product online. They provided a sample of the reviews that were emailed to them, including email addresses, product information and order numbers. For those customer reviews, they also provided data from their online payment system, which showed product and order information that corresponded with the customer reviews.
We considered the information provided showed that the reviews were genuine, and therefore that the evidence was adequate.
We therefore concluded that the reviews were genuine and that the ad was not misleading. On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) 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 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. (Endorsements and testimonials), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the claim “Product Review” alongside the image of four and a half stars out of five filled in and the claim “2205 reviews” to mean that the aggregate product review rating based on all relevant and suitable reviews was four and a half out of five, and that reviews would not be selectively published solely on the basis of their positivity.
Swann Communications said that they exercised a moderation policy such that offensive reviews or those unrelated to a product were not published. We considered it was reasonable to exercise a moderation policy which placed restrictions on the reviews that were submitted, by removing offensive reviews or reviews placed in error. Given the reviews page was titled “Product Reviews” we also considered it was reasonable to remove reviews related to customer service instead of specific products.
Swann Communications provided those reviews which had been moderated and therefore prevented from appearing. We considered those reviews were consistent with the moderation policy and we noted that a five star review had been moderated out because of the language used. Because we considered the moderation policy was reasonable and because the evidence indicated that they published all their reviews consistent with the moderation policy, we therefore concluded the aggregate review score of four and a half out of five was unlikely to mislead.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) 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 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. (Endorsements and testimonials), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
