ASA Adjudication on Suzuki GB plc

Ad

A direct mailing promoted a hatchback car. The envelope was headed "your train tickets" and contained two leaflets, one of which looked like a train ticket. The ticket stated "Adult RUDE Child SCREAMING Price LOTS AND LOTS” and “WILL I EVER RETURN?" It opened to reveal a photo montage of the car, butterflies, flowers and buildings against blue skies and a rainbow. Text stated "This is the brand new Suzuki Alto ... A cute and compact city car with a fun fashionable design and great green credentials ... The lightweight engine and aerodynamic body give fuel consumption figures of up to 64.2mpg.* So your fun drive can be a guilt-free one too ... ". The second leaflet contained an entry form for a competition to win a camera.

Issue

1. The complainant challenged whether the mailing, and in particular the references to "great green credentials" and "guilt-free" was misleading, because it implied car travel was more environmentally friendly than train travel.

2. The ASA challenged whether the claims "great green credentials" and "guilt-free" misleadingly implied the car caused little or no harm to the environment.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Suzuki GB plc (Suzuki) said the main message of the ad was that the Suzuki Alto was a fun, fashionable and affordable compact city car with low CO2 emissions. They said the creative did not make a direct comparison with train travel, and the copy was not specific to train travel. They said the inside of the ticket explained that the car was a cute, fun, compact and fashionable way of getting from A to B, which also had great green credentials and an affordable price tag. They acknowledged that additional information could have been included in the direct mailing to clarify that the basis of the "great green credentials" claim was against other car manufacturers and not train travel.

2. Suzuki sent the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) CO2 figures for the car at the time of the Alto's launch. They said those figures showed the Suzuki Alto was less polluting than most other cars on the road, and that was the basis for the claim "great green credentials". They said that was also why the car could be described as "guilt-free" compared to driving a more polluting car. They said the reference to guilt-free also related to the low cost of running the car, because the car achieved more miles per gallon than most other cars.  They said that in future they would ensure the ad stated that the Alto had "better" green credentials than other cars as opposed to "great" green credentials.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted Suzuki's comments. We noted the first page of the leaflet was presented in the format of a train ticket and stated "Adult RUDE Child SCREAMING Price LOTS AND LOTS". Although the inside of the leaflet described the car as having "great green credentials" and being "guilt-free", we did not consider most recipients would consider that as a claim that the car was more environmentally friendly than train travel. Instead, we considered recipients would understand from the reference to price and the behaviour of other passengers that the mock ticket was attempting to promote the Alto as a convenient, fun, alternative to train travel. We therefore concluded the ad did not imply car travel was more environmentally friendly than train travel.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 19.1 (Other comparisons) and 49.1 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted Suzuki's assertion that the Alto was less polluting than other cars on the road, and their intention to amend future advertising so that it was clear the car was better for the environment than those vehicles. Although the Alto model with manual transmission had CO2 emissions of 102 g/km, putting it in the second lowest group for car tax, we nonetheless considered the claims "great green credentials" and "guilt-free", combined with the creative treatment showing butterflies, blue skies, flowers and a rainbow implied the car caused little or no harm to the environment. Because that was not the case, we concluded the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 (Environmental claims).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)