ASA Adjudication on Chempak Ltd

Ad

An ad in Garden Direct catalogue for a mole repellent product, called “Anti-Mole Bulbs”, contained the heading "Anti Mole Bulbs and Planter". The ad showed a photograph of the bulbs and a tool to aid planting them in the ground. Text stated "A naturally occurring native Swedish bulb that secretes a smell that humans can't detect but that moles and field mice find offensive. Lasting 2 to 5 years the bulbs are planted directly into the lawn using the special tool included … Very occasionally they produce a small innocuous yellow flower that can be mowed off …"

Issue

One complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims in the ad could be substantiated, because he had found that the presence of moles had increased since he started using the bulbs.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Garden Direct said the bulbs were supplied from Sweden by Chaselink.  They said Chaselink had conducted extensive testing and had found the bulbs to be effective.  They also said the bulbs had been tested by a national gardening magazine, Garden News, which had awarded the product the top mark of five stars.  Garden Direct provided us with correspondence from Chaselink which said that they had carried out tests in 2003/04, and that they had photographic evidence and notes to substantiate the efficacy of the product, but that they were unable to locate the evidence currently.  Chaselink had also advised Garden Direct that they had testimonials from customers in Britain and Sweden who had found that the product had worked effectively.  Garden Direct advised that the product name "Anti-Mole Bulbs" was not a registered trademark.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA acknowledged the response from Garden Direct.  We understood that their supplier, Chaselink, held testimonials from customers who had found the product effective.  Although we had not been sent the testimonials, we pointed out that the CAP Code provided that testimonials alone did not constitute substantiation and must, where necessary, be supported with robust substantiation.  We noted the magazine article from Garden News in Spring 2004, and we acknowledged that the Anti Mole Bulbs had been awarded five stars.  We also noted that the article had stated "Even gardens riddled with moles, these bulbs drove them off.  The moles could be tracked steadily moving further away.  Even in the worst garden, there were no molehills to be found after six weeks."  However, Garden Direct had not provided us with any satisfactory evidence to substantiate the efficacy of the Anti-Mole Bulbs such as the tests or trials that had been carried out either by Chaselink or Garden News.

We considered that the product name, "Anti-Mole Bulbs" and the claim ... secretes a smell ... that moles and field mice find offensive", implied that the product could rid gardens of moles.  We were concerned that Garden Direct had been unable to produce evidence of tests carried out on the product to support the efficacy claims.  We concluded that, without substantiation, the ad could be misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told Garden Direct not to state the product name "Anti-Mole Bulbs" in their marketing material, including on pack shots, and to remove the claim "secretes a smell ... that moles and field mice find offensive".  We told them not to repeat the claims or similar unless satisfactory, robust evidence could be provided to support them.  We advised them that the product name could only be used again, without substantiation, if both the name was registered as a trademark and marketing communications included a prominent statement disclaiming the implied claim.  We advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)