ASA Adjudication on Contractor UK Ltd

Ad

An e-mail newsletter and a follow-up leaflet for an IT contractor service: a. The newsletter stated "... Best month ever for CUK ... Contractor UK recorded its best month ever for traffic during the month of March 2008 ... resulting in 249,146 unique visitors coming to Contractor UK ...". b. The leaflet stated "The UK's most visited IT Contractor Site - Online since 1998 ... Founded in 1999, Contractor UK remains the most visited IT Contractor site in the UK ... in March 2008, the Contractor UK network received 249,146 unique visitors coming to our site ... making us the most visited and viewed Contractor site in the UK.

Issue

ContractorCalculator (CC) challenged whether Contractor UK (CUK) could substantiate:

1. that they had received 249,146 unique visitors to their website in March 2008;  

2. the claim "The UK's most visited IT Contractor Site"; and

3. the claim "Online since 1998".

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. CUK asserted that they had always used trusted and reliable methods to measure the traffic to their site. They sent traffic reports from an independent third party for March 2008; they said the data showed they had received 249,346 unique visitors.

2. CUK asserted that CC had made a claim in an email of 29 April 2008 to be the 'leading internet resource for contractors with over 100,000 unique visitors per month'. CUK believed, because their data showed they had received more than double that figure, their claim to be "The UK's most visited IT Contractor Site" was substantiated.

3. CUK asserted that the claim "Online since 1998" was accurate and that the claim "Founded in 1999" in their leaflet was wrong. They referred to the Companies House website which stated that Contractor UK was incorporated in June 1998; they said the sole nature of the business was the Contractor UK website.  They sent a link to an earlier version of their site which stated all content was copyright to "Contractor UK Limited 1998" and  another archived version of the site from the year 2000 which stated "News, Information and Resources for IT Contractors - Since November 1998". They said they did not have screen shots of the early site.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA noted the data sent by CUK was from an independent third party but that CUK wanted to keep the results confidential. We noted the data gave the number of unique visitors for different domain names and showed the total unique visitor figures for those domain names was 249,346. We noted there was only one website, each section of which was navigated from the same central panel, but that some sections had been set up with different domains or sub-domains for reasons of functionality and administration. We noted the ads stated "... 249,146 unique visitors coming to Contractor UK" and "the Contractor UK network received 249,146 unique visitors" and did not refer to any one specific domain name. We considered that, because there was only one website, and because the claims did not refer to any one specific domain name, CUK's use of the figures for different domain names in their total unique visitor claims was unlikely to mislead readers.

However, we also understood that the figures CUK referred to had not been independently audited and did not therefore ensure traffic claims adhered to industry agreed standards; we understood that, because they had not been audited, it was possible that CUK's figures could include double counting and could report invalid traffic due to spiders, robots, or internal usage. We understood that figures could be audited by ABCe, the industry owned auditor, which audited systems and data to standards defined by the Joint Industry Committee for Web Standards in the UK and Ireland (JICWEBS). We understood that the software used by CUK could deliver unique user figures to JICWEBS Industry agreed standards if it was correctly implemented. However, we understood that, because the figures had not been audited, it was not possible to know if the software had been correctly implemented. We considered that, because of those problems in the measuring of the data, the evidence CUK had sent was not sufficiently robust to substantiate their unique visitor claims. Because we had not seen robust evidence of the number of unique visitors to CUK's website, we also considered that the claim "The UK's most visited IT Contractor Site" had not been substantiated.

On point 1 and 2, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

3. Upheld

We noted CUK's comments that the site had been in operation since 1998. We also noted, however, CUK had not sent documentary evidence to show that, and that an independent website listed the website www.contractoruk.com as being formed in May 1999. We considered that readers would interpret the claim "Online since 1998" to mean that the Contractor UK website had been in operation since 1998. Because we had seen no evidence to show that, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told CUK to remove their unique visitor claims and to remove the claims "The UK's most visited IT Contractor Site" and "Online since 1998". We told them to ensure that they held robust evidence to support all claims capable of objective substantiation and advised them to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)