ASA Adjudication on Pro-Tax

Ad

A magazine ad, in a trade magazine, for a trade recruitment company.

Issue

Integral Search & Selection challenged whether:

1. the claim "Pro-Tax are the preferred suppliers to 43 of the Top 50 accountancy firms in the UK" could be substantiated;

2. the claim "We are the first firm [FTSE 100 & 250] clients call to fill their vacancies", could be substantiated because they understood Pro-Tax would not be aware of which company FTSE clients would call first;

3. the claim "Pro-Tax have the largest dedicated tax recruitment team in the country", could be substantiated; and

4. the claim "the Directors of the business still actively recruit so the business is led by the most experienced individuals in the market" could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Pro-Tax said they were the preferred suppliers for 43 out of the top 50 accountancy firms and sent us the names of the firms for whom they were not on the preferred supplier list.

2. Pro-Tax sent us the names of companies that cited Pro-Tax as the first company they called when they had vacancies.  In addition, they explained they signed up 30 clients to a "Preferred Suppliers Agreement" which established that they would contact Pro-Tax when they had vacancies.  Other agreements with FTSE 100 and 250 clients were verbal. They therefore believed the claim could be substantiated.

3. Pro-Tax told us they had ten dedicated tax recruitment consultants at their company which they believed was a greater number than their competitors.

4. Pro-Tax explained that their Directors still actively recruited for the business, trained junior consultants, pitched to prospective clients and worked closely with consultants.  They said their Directors had over 40 years worth of experience which they believed exceeded the length of experience  of their closest competitors.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that Pro-Tax had 30 clients signed to agreements, but did not see evidence to demonstrate they were the only preferred supplier. We considered the claim implied that Pro-Tax was the only preferred supplier and, because that was not the case, we concluded the claim was likely to mislead.

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

2 Upheld

We noted Pro-Taxs assertion that companies that had signed their "Preferred Suppliers Agreement" contacted them first when they had vacancies.  We also understood that only 30 companies were signed up to this agreement and that a verbal relationship existed between some other companies. However, we considered the claim "We are the first firm [FTSE 100 & 250] clients call to fill their vacancies", was likely to give readers the impression that all FTSE 100 and 250 companies called Pro-Tax first. We therefore concluded the claim was likely to mislead.

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

3. Upheld

We noted Pro-Taxs assertion that they had more consultants than their closest competitors. However, we understood that one of their competitors mentioned by Integral had a larger number of advising consultants in taxation.  In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that Pro-Tax had the greater number of consultants, we concluded the ad was likely to mislead.  

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

4. Upheld

We understood that the Directors at Pro-Tax still took part in recruitment and had over 40 years experience.  However, we considered that readers would infer that the claim "Directors of the business still actively recruit so the business is led by the most experienced individuals in the market" pertained to all companies rather than just a few selected competitors.  In the absence of robust substantiation to demonstrate that Pro-Taxs Directors were the most experienced, we concluded the claim was likely to mislead.

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

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told Pro-Tax to ensure they held robust substantiation before making comparative claims in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)