ASA Adjudication on Sit-Up Ltd

Ad

An ad for a House M8 air freshener with lavender and eucalyptus fragrances was shown on Bid TV. The presenter said the air freshener would “Help to scrub the air clean … It sucks in the air, now we are talking about, not just the normal air, but we are talking about sucking in odours and pollutants, pollen, allergens, when it sucks it in, the water and indeed with the essence in there help to kinda scrub and trap in the pollen and keep well obviously clean the air. So dirty air for want of a better word goes in, odours, pollutants, allergens, pets, smoke, food, think about all those odours that go in and indeed the fresh air comes out. So it literally scrubs the air clean … It doesn’t mask the odour like an air freshener would do, it cleans the air, it gets rid of those pollutants, it gets rid of those odours … In fact that would be quite nice in the bathroom wouldn’t it, helping to get rid of those odours, not to masking those odours but to get rid of those odours.” The ad showed the air freshener box, which had these claims on it “Improves air quality Helps reduce pet odours and other unpleasant smells Helps reduce bacteria, pollen, viruses, dust and other airborne contaminants.” The presenter said “Perhaps you know someone who suffers from asthma? It may well be, if you live in the city, it might be the pollutants in the air, it might be the car fumes that are coming through and are actually affecting the respiratory system. It may well be however if you live in the countryside, the pollens the grasses, because people are starting to cut their grass, it can irritate people’s respiratory systems.” The presenter said “It uses a very, very, very, very small amount of energy. You know some of these plug-ins, they can actually use quite a lot of energy … They can use a fair bit of energy. This, however, uses a very, very low amount of energy.” The ad for the House M8 air freshener had a start price of £40 and the air freshener was sold for £15.99 at the end of the auction.

Issue

Monitoring staff challenged whether evidence substantiated the claim that the air freshener would:

1.  get rid of odours, pollutants, pollen, allergens, pet smells, smoke and food smells;

2.  reduce bacteria, viruses, dust and other airborne contaminants;

3.  help asthma sufferers;

4.  use less energy than other plug-in products.

5.  Monitoring staff challenged whether the start price implied the air freshener was generally available at that price.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. & 2.  Bid TV submitted a report of a test conducted on the PerfectAire Revitalising System filled with PerfectAire Revitalising Concentrate blended with Perfect+ MicrobeShield formula.  The report stated that the product was acceptable and effective at 'scrubbing' the incoming air and that that allowed a mixture of botanical extracts within the solution to disinfect bacteria, fungi, envelop viruses, malodours, nicotine smoke and other contaminants.

3.  Bid TV believed the evidence substantiated the claim that the product cleaned the air but they acknowledged that they had no evidence to substantiate the claim that it helped allergy sufferers; they offered to remove the claim.

4.  Bid TV explained that the product used 16 watts.  They acknowledged that the comparison with other plug-ins was wrong and said they would not repeat it.

5.  Bid TV explained that their average auction lasted eight minutes.  They believed that without an on-screen start price viewers would not know whether the price had fallen or not.  

They explained that their policy was to obtain a high, a medium and a low price and to use the average as the start price.  They explained that, because most of their products were developed specifically for the Sit-Up group, they compared their products with similar products and adjusted their price for any variability in the product features.  They submitted evidence from two websites that listed similar products for £40.  They believed the price comparison with the other air fresheners was fair and honest and the overall impression conveyed to the average viewer was that a similar product would cost around £40.  They believed that, because one website listed the LED as a "free" feature, they did not need to assign a value to that feature.  The second website listed five air fresheners, four of which included the LED feature, all at the same £40 price.

They added that the eventual selling price for most items was significantly less than the start price and was a reflection of the amazing value they offered to their customers and not, as might be assumed, an indication that they used misleading or unjustified start prices.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA noted the tests had been conducted only on carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, respirable suspended particulates, nicotine, ammonia and mercaptans and had used an M8 air freshener with Perfect+ MicrobeShield formula, not lavender and eucalyptus.  Furthermore, we noted the study had not accounted for air mixing and the degree to which measured changes depended on the distance between the device and the point of measurement.  We concluded that the evidence did not substantiate the claims.   

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

3.  Upheld

We considered that the ad implied the air freshener would benefit to asthma sufferers.  In the absence of a rigorously designed human placebo-controlled clinical study, we considered that the claimed benefit to asthma sufferers was misleading.  

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 8.2.3 (Products without a marketing authorisation).

4. Upheld

We noted many other plug-in air fresheners also used 16 watts.    We considered that the ad was misleading and unfairly attacked competitor products.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.3 (Denigration).

5. Upheld

We noted several products were available, two of which were the same air fresheners that Bid TV used in its price comparison, and the prices ranged from around £20 to £30.  Most of them, including the ones submitted as price evidence by Bid TV, had built-in L.E.D lights for different mood effects but the House M8 one did not.  We considered that keeping the start price on-screen throughout implied a price for which the air freshener was generally available.  We considered that using the price of other air fresheners did not substantiate that the advertised air freshener was generally available for £40.  

We noted rule 5.3.1 required broadcasters to refer to the BERR Pricing Practices Guide, which stated that, in comparisons with another traders prices, you should "give the name of the other trader clearly and prominently with the price comparison" and "ensure that the other traders price to which you quote applies to the same product - or to substantially similar product and you state any differences clearly."  We noted Bid Up TV had not done that.  

We concluded that the ad was misleading.  

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing).

Action

We concluded that the ad must not be broadcast again in its present form and that the product should not be advertised without adequate substantiation for the claims made for it.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)