ASA Adjudication on Bobby Roberts Super Circus

Ad

A leaflet and a poster, for Bobby Roberts Super Circus, claimed "Voted No.1 for Animal Care".

Issue

1. The complainant believed the claim was misleading because it implied that the award had been given to the circus by an animal welfare group.

2.  The ASA challenged whether the reference to the award was misleading because it understood that it had been given to Bobby Roberts Super Circus (Bobby Roberts) by the editor of a trade magazine in 2000.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Bobby Roberts said the ad did not state or imply that the award was given by an animal welfare group. They considered that few people would believe animal welfare groups, which tend to be politically opposed to circuses, would give such an award. Bobby Roberts said the circus had received two awards. In 1997 they were awarded the Circus Friends Association (CFA) award for Best Circus with Animals. They said the CFA was a group of circus enthusiasts who presented annual awards voted for by its members. Bobby Roberts maintained that CFA members were generally well informed and visited many of the UKs circuses and several on the continent; they therefore had a sound basis for their judgements. They said Bobby Roberts were also awarded the World's Fair Humanitarian Award for Animal Care in 2000. They said The World's Fair was a trade newspaper, for the outdoor entertainment industry, that featured a regular section on circuses. Bobby Roberts maintained that the then editor of The Worlds Fair had given the award. They maintained that his opinion and knowledge of circuses was highly regarded in the circus world.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the award for best circus with animals was voted for by members of the CFA. We also noted, however, the animal care award was presented by The Worlds Fair. We considered that some consumers, who were concerned about animal welfare in circuses, were likely to be reassured by the claim. Although we noted the ad did not explicitly state the award had been given by an animal welfare group, we considered that readers were likely to assume that it has been given by a body that was in a position to assess animal welfare.  We considered that the absence of any clarification made the claim ambiguous and likely to mislead some readers.

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

2. Upheld

We noted the animal care award was presented by The Worlds Fair on the basis of an individuals opinion and was given over five years ago. We considered that readers would expect the award for animal care to have been given recently and that it had been voted for. Because the award was not recent and it had not been voted for, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told Bobby Roberts to remove the word "voted" and to make clear the date and source of the award.