ASA Adjudication on CEND Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad, for dietary supplements, stated “MP Max from myprotein.co.uk Great tasting, cutting edge supplements direct to you from Europe’s leading online manufacturer … exclusively manufactured and sold by Myprotein, the entire retail ready range is available at direct prices…”. The ad went on to list six products: protein flapjacks, meal replacement, true whey, weight gainer, creatine and glutamine.

Issue

Reflex Nutrition Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and whether they could be substantiated:

1.   Europes leading online manufacturer" because competitor companies had higher turnovers, and

2.   Exclusively manufactured ... by Myprotein", because they believed the advertiser did not have the facilities to manufacture the products.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Myprotein said they were a 100% online business selling direct from their factory to the end user.  They pointed out that some of the competitors mentioned by Reflex Nutrition sold through retail channels as well as online, and that another did not manufacture its own products.  They said the two further companies cited sold vitamins and minerals, whereas they sold sports supplements, although they acknowledged there was some overlap.  Myprotein believed those were two separate markets. However they offered to amend the ad to state "sports supplements" to make clear to which market they were referring.

2. Myprotein explained that, although they manufactured the vast majority of products in-house, they used an external source to manufacture the MRP, True Whey, protein flapjacks and weight gainer products shown in the ad.  They maintained that that was a very small proportion because they had over 1000 distinct products.  They offered to amend the claim to "The majority exclusively manufactured ... by Myprotein" or an alternative as advised by the ASA.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Myprotein traded exclusively online, unlike several similar companies that also sold via retail channels.  We also noted they acknowledged that two competing companies had higher online turnovers than they did, but felt that those companies catered for the vitamin and mineral rather than the sports supplement sector.  We noted the ad stated merely "supplements" and we considered that readers would not necessarily know from the ad to which type of supplement Myprotein intended the claim to apply.  We concluded that the claim in its current form was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

2. Upheld

We noted, although they manufactured some of their ranges in-house,  Myprotein did not make four of the six advertised products.  Because they did not make all the MP Max products themselves, we concluded that the claim "Exclusively manufactured ... by Myprotein" which would be seen to refer to the MP Max product range, was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

On point 1, we told Myprotein to amend the ad to make it clear that the "leading" claim applied only to the sports supplement market and to ensure that they held documentary evidence to support their claim.  We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team on future advertising campaigns.

On point 2, we told Myprotein not to use the claim "Exclusively manufactured ... by Myprotein" in future advertising.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)