ASA Adjudication on Unilever UK Ltd

Ad

Two ads, for gravy granules, in catering magazines:

a. The first ad featured a picture of a tub of gravy granules above a headline which stated "unbeatable taste vs. Bisto*". Smaller text below the headline stated "KNORR has unbeatable scores for taste, appearance, consistency and aroma when testing against main competitors*". Smallprint at the bottom of the ad stated "*Partner Research Jan-April 2010".

b. The second ad featured a picture of a sachet of gravy granules above headline text which stated "unbeatable taste vs. Bisto*". Smaller text below the headline stated "KNORR has unbeatable scores for taste, appearance, consistency and aroma when tested". Smallprint at the bottom of the ad stated "*Partner Research Jan-April 2010".

Issue

Premier Foods Group Ltd challenged whether:

1. the comparative claims in both ads were misleading and could be substantiated;

2. the ads should have made clear how consumers could verify the featured comparisons; and

3. the comparison of the advertised products with "Bisto" was misleading, because Bisto was a brand name and the ads did not make clear to which the specific Bisto product the comparison referred.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

Response

Unilever UK Ltd (Unilever) said they went to great lengths to ensure that their advertising was not misleading and, to that end, their standard practice was to ensure that all their ads were reviewed by legal and technical professionals prior to publication or transmission to ensure that they complied with all applicable laws, regulations and self-regulatory codes. They said they also strictly adhered to their own Code of Business Principles to safeguard the reputation and interests of Unilever as a global business.

1. Unilever said the comparative claims that appeared in ads (a) and (b) were based on a survey conducted by Partner Research, who were an independent research company which conducted all of its research according to the MRS Code of Conduct.

Unilever said the survey was based on a sample of 62 chefs who purchased gravy granule products and who represented the wider market. They said their product was blind taste tested alongside Bisto Gravy Granules, which was the closest equivalent product in the Bisto range. They said participants were asked to evaluate the gravy granule products against several criteria, including ranking them against each other for overall opinion, and that more of the chefs ranked Knorr gravy granules first for buying intention (whether they would buy it or not) and overall opinion than ranked the equivalent Bisto product first. They said the chefs were then asked unprompted questions as to why they ranked each product first for overall opinion and more chefs said they ranked Knorr first because of taste than ranked Bisto first because of taste. They said that more chefs also said they ranked Knorr first because of the texture, taste of ingredients, appearance and seasoning than said they ranked Bisto first because of the same factors.

Unilever said, whilst their product ranked above Bistos on overall opinion, they were conscious that the scores were quite close and did not show a statistically significant preference for Knorr. They said that they had therefore chosen the parity claim "unbeatable vs. Bisto" rather than a superiority claim. They provided relevant extracts from the survey to the ASA on a confidential basis which they believed substantiated the claims.

2. Unilever said the comparative claims in both ads were asterisked to corresponding wording at the bottom right of the ads which stated "*Partner Research Jan-April 2010". They said, in line with industry practice, the claims were therefore clearly qualified as being the result of testing carried out by Partner Research and believed the claims were therefore verifiable in accordance with the Code.

3. Unilever said both Bisto and Knorr produced a range of gravy products for the food service industry which met different needs. They said both Knorr and Bisto produced a gravy granules product and the product featured in the ad was the trade gravy granule product from their range, Knorr Fine Gravy Granules. They said the main trade gravy granule competitor for that product was Bisto Gravy Granules. They said the products were direct competitors because they were used in kitchens in exactly the same way; both products produced 25 litres and the dosage of grams per product to litre of water was the same. Unilever argued that, because the Bisto Gravy Granules product had a share of approximately 50 per cent of the trade gravy granules sector it was instantly recognisable to trade buyers as "Bisto" and that it would be particularly apparent in the context of a trade ad for Knorr Fine Gravy Granules. They also said that both products were also referred to as "Gravy Granules" on the front of their packs and had similar prices through wholesalers. They said it would therefore be obvious to the trade readers of the ads that that was the equivalent product being tested.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that the headline claim "unbeatable taste vs. Bisto" in both ads and the claims "KNORR has unbeatable scores for taste, appearance, consistency and aroma when testing against main competitors*" in ad (a) and "KNORR has unbeatable scores for taste, appearance, consistency and aroma when tested" in ad (b) were top parity claims capable of objective substantiation.

We noted the data provided by Unilever and we noted that 62 chefs had been surveyed and asked to taste three products; Knorr Gravy Granules for Meat Dishes (Knorr), Bisto Gravy Granules (Bisto) and a third product, not referred to in the ad, and asked to choose which one they would rank first. We noted that over half of the respondents had ranked the third-party product first and that, of the remaining chefs, fractionally more had ranked Knorr first than had Bisto. We noted however, that in that comparison the chefs were expressing an overall opinion of the products and not singling out a particular factor which they preferred and we considered that that overall comparison was therefore not capable of substantiating the claims in the ad, which related to more specific criteria.

We noted that the chefs were then asked further, open questions to identify which, if any, particular factors had contributed to their decision to rank their chosen product first overall out of the criteria of taste, texture, taste of ingredients, appearance, seasoning and smell. We noted that, again, the third party product had come top and the Knorr product had got a fractionally higher score than Bisto in most cases. We noted, however, that while the chefs had been asked to nominate which of these factors had contributed to their overall decision to rank the product first, they had not been asked to compare or rank those factors specifically between the products on test and the survey therefore did not show the chefs preference for each of the factors. We therefore did not consider that the survey data showed that Knorr had come first or was unbeatable in comparison with Bisto with regard to those individual factors.

In addition, we noted that the data that had been captured showed a lower score for Knorr than Bisto in the aroma category and we therefore considered, even by Unilevers interpretation of the data, that the results would not show that Knorr was unbeatable for smell. We also noted that the claim in ad (b) included a comparison with main competitors, but we noted from the survey that the third-party product, also a main competitor, had come out top and we therefore concluded that that data, again, even if interpreted in the way suggested by Unilever, did not show that Knorr was unbeatable in comparison with main competitors.

Because the survey did not show that Knorr was unbeatable versus its main competitors and we were unable to ascertain whether it was unbeatable in the individual categories stated in both ads we concluded that ads (a) and (b) were misleading.

On this point ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons).

2. Upheld

We noted that ads (a) and (b) made a comparison between Knorr and Bisto, and we considered that both ads should have set out how information used to make that comparison could be checked by consumers. We noted that the headline claim in both ads was accompanied by an asterisk that linked to small print giving the name of the survey company and the dates of the survey. We considered, however, that that information alone was not sufficient for readers to verify the comparisons, and considered that the small print should have contained a signpost to the means by which consumers and competitors could verify the basis of the comparative claims, such as by directing them to the relevant website.

Because the ads did not make clear how readers could verify the comparison, we concluded that they were misleading.

On this point ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).

3. Not upheld

We noted that ads (a) and (b) both featured pictures of Knorrs standard gravy granules product and noted that the headline claim in both ads referred to Bisto. We understood from the response provided by Knorr that Bisto Gravy Granules was the most equivalent product to Knorrs standard gravy product, and had approximately a 50 per cent share of the trade market. We considered that it was therefore likely to be understood by a trade audience that that was the Bisto product being compared in the ad. We concluded the ads were not misleading on this point.

On this point we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.33, 3.34 and 3.35 (Comparisons) but did not find them in breach.

Action

Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in their current form.

We told Unilever to ensure that their ads accurately reflected the results of survey data and included means by which consumers could verify comparisons.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)