ASA Adjudication on Gardx Protection Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad, for the GardX Vehicle Protection System, showed a photograph of Ronnie and Reggie Kray walking down a road. Text below stated "IF YOU ARE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT PROTECTION AND REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT PROFIT DON'T TALK TO THE BOYS TALK TO THE GUV'NORS". Smaller text stated "More and more car dealerships are switching to our GardX®Vehicle Protection System. It makes sense: for the customer, and when it comes to sales of protection packs versus vehicle sales, it makes sense for dealer profits, too. So, if you're serious about vehicle protection and about your business, call GardX®..." Text below stated "WE MEAN BUSINESS" and, underneath the GardX logo, text stated "The ultimate vehicle protection system".

Issue

Sheep 100, on behalf of their client Diamondbrite, challenged whether:

1.  the ad so closely resembled that of Diamondbrite, which appeared in the same magazine, that it was likely to cause confusion; and

2.  the text "DON'T TALK TO THE BOYS TALK TO THE GUV'NORS" was denigratory, because it suggested the GardX product was superior to Diamondbrites product, which was the only car protection system that lasted for a guaranteed six years.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1.  GardX said the two photographs were completely different from each other and in both ads they were used in analogous terms.  They claimed that their ad would not confuse readers and pointed out that none of the motor dealers it attracted had been confused as to which company each ad referred.  

2.  GardX said their objective was to be amusing, rather than denigratory, and they believed they had achieved that aim.    They said they had recently upgraded their own guarantee to six years.  They also said, unlike the rival Diamondbrite product, their guarantee did not necessitate an annual inspection by the dealer which, they argued, was inconvenient, came at a cost to the customer and increased the overall cost of the paint protection treatment.  They claimed that customers were required to send guarantees to Diamondbrite within 14 days, and that in their experience as previous owners of car dealerships that sold Diamondbrite, many people invalidated their guarantee because they had not sent it in time.  GardX said their own guarantee was submitted by the dealer direct to them, and that they therefore received over 98% of all GardX guarantees issued.  

GardX argued that their paint protection formulation incorporated the latest nanotechnology in its molecular make up.  They said Lotus Cars ran a test programme for paint protection products in 2006 and that GardX was named the official Lotus product, and was now recommended to their dealer network worldwide.  

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the ads appeared in the same issue of a magazine, with GardX on the page after Diamondbrite.   We also noted the Diamondbrite ad had previously appeared in another magazine.  We considered that the ads both featured images of hard looking men in suits, promoted the same type of product and both referenced the theme of protection.  We considered that, although the two ads had the same theme, the full-length photograph of the Kray twins was significantly different to the close-up image of two men who looked like bouncers.  We also considered that the company logo in each ad was clearly visible.  We concluded that readers were unlikely to be misled or confused.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 18.4 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) and 21.1 (Imitation) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted GardX had recently introduced a six-year guarantee and their product incorporated the latest technology.  We considered that the ad did not make explicit reference to Diamondbrite and did not claim that the GardX product was superior.  We considered that, although the text "DON'T TALK TO THE BOYS TALK TO THE GUV'NORS" and the image of the Krays alluded to Diamondbrite's advertising campaign, in the context of a competitive market readers were likely to interpret the reference to "the boys" as light hearted.  We concluded that the ad was not denigratory.  

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action was required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)