ASA Adjudication on A Touch of Glass

Ad

A directory ad, for a glazing company, was headlined “The simple way to stop 60% of your heat escaping this winter”. Text below stated “With energy bills rising, bouncing an extra 60% heat back into your home this winter sounds like a good plan! The triple shield glazing fitted as standard with all products from A Touch of Glass performs so much better than the double glazing fitted in most homes ... ”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claim " ... stop 60% of your heat escaping this winter" was misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

A Touch of Glass said they had made the claim in comparison to conventional double glazing because the glazing they fitted had a European specification of 1.1 U value, whereas standard UK glazing was usually k glass, which had a U value of approximately 1.8 with no gas fill. They said they were given that information by one of the manufacturers that supplied their frames and glass; they submitted the manufacturers brochure, which stated that double glazing with k glass would lose nearly 60% more heat than the product would.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered the ad, in particular the text " ... A Touch of Glass performs so much better than the double glazing fitted in most homes ... " in the context of the claims " ... stop 60% of your heat escaping this winter" and " ... bouncing an extra 60% heat back into your home ... ", would be interpreted as suggesting that A Touch of Glasss products would stop 60% of heat escaping and perform substantially better than other double glazing. We noted the claims in the brochure they submitted. However, we considered a statement in a manufacturers brochure did not constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate that was the case. We noted we had not seen robust data to demonstrate the claim made about the products heat loss or comparing the products heat loss with that of the conventional double glazing the ad said was fitted in most homes. In the absence of robust substantiation for the claim, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told A Touch of Glass to ensure they held robust substantiation for future claims.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)