ASA Adjudication on Ideal Shopping Direct plc

Ad

BCAP monitored an infomercial for Greased Lightning on Ideal Vitality; it claimed “Would you like to have more miles per gallon than you are getting at the moment, would you like to have lower emissions, would you like to have a quieter-running engine, better acceleration and also get improved performance and something that will pay for itself virtually instantaneously? Well you can with Greased Lightning.”

Fuel Savings:
“Would you like to be able to save that amount of money [tips hundreds of pound coins onto a tray] each year on average about £291.32? Well you can by using Greased Lightning”; and a testimonial saying: “Maybe £300 per year maybe”.

Maintenance Savings:
“All of that means you are going to be saving money and not just the odd pound here and there … we averaged out what Ideal customers are telling us they are saving £291.32 in a year. This is just on the fuel but they are also saving on maintenance as well because the product reduces the friction in the engine so you save on maintenance.”

Friction:
“It’s a once a year treatment or once every 12,000 miles. What it will do, it will dramatically reduce the friction in the engine and, by reducing the friction, you will get a quieter, smoother-running engine and, because you are reducing friction, you are getting less wear so it’s saving your money on maintenance as well.”

Lubrication:
“Giving more efficient lubrication … coating every part of that engine”.

Cleaning:
“It’s going to clean away all the deposits, the carbon deposits that have built up, restoring back that lost performance, that lost acceleration, that lost fuel economy, restoring that back again, so again putting money in your pocket.”

Car Type:
“It doesn’t matter what kind of car you’ve got, whether it’s new or it’s old, it’s classic or vintage any kind of car, sports car, whatever you’ve got, Greased Lightning is going to work for you.”

Overheating:
“The engine used to overheat when stationary but now the temperature gauge never goes over the half-way mark”.

Cold Starts:
“The cars started better when cold, ran smoother and quieter”.

Suitability:
“Greased Lightening is compatible with all oils including fully synthetics”.

Demonstrations:
During the infomercial the presenter demonstrated, with an electrical hand held whisk and with a vertical train of gears, how Greased Lightning adhered to surfaces better than an unbranded oil. The presenter used “before” and “after” photographs of a fuel injector, piston and intake valve and said “Look how uneven that spray is. That’s costing you money and fuel because you’re not getting that efficient injection of the fuel. But look, afterwards, you’re getting a minute spray but the correct amount of fuel going in. That is actually saving you money. Look at the piston before, look at those carbon deposits before, all choked up with carbon deposits, look afterwards cleaned away. Look at that intake valve on the right-hand side of the screen choked up with carbon deposits, again costing you money … This is the head of an engine, these are those valves that we were talking about. Look at these choked-up with carbon; this is reducing the performance of the engine, this is reducing acceleration and it’s reducing the fuel economy, these carbon deposits here. This is how the valves should look and this is what the Greased Lightning fuel treatment does. It cleans away those carbon deposits restoring back that lost performance, that lost acceleration, that lost fuel economy, by bringing the engine back just how it should be and saving you money”.

Issue

BCAP challenged whether Greased Lightning would:

1.  reduce emissions;

2.  reduce fuel consumption, giving average savings of £291 a year;

3. reduce engine wear and friction, giving savings in maintenance costs and a quieter engine;

4.  clean engines, restoring lost performance and lost acceleration;

5.  be suitable for petrol and diesel engines;

6.  last for one year or 12,000 miles;  

7.  stop engines from overheating or start better when cold;

8.  be compatible with all oils including synthetics and

9. whether the demonstrations gave a misleading impression of the requirements or capabilities of the additive.

Response

Ideal Vitality submitted evidence of tests conducted on Greased Lightning.

Assessment

BCAP sought expert advice.  The expert noted the main study involved a polytetraflouroethylene (PTFE) additive package used at 20% whereas the Greased Lightning additive package seemed to use 6%.  The tests were carried out on American petrol engines over a decade ago and used earlier American-quality oils, which are inferior to present-day European oils.  The expert added that although several aftermarket oil additives that were on sale contained PTFE, experts generally accepted that they should be avoided because of concerns over their effect on the overall performance level of the oil to which they are added.

1. Upheld  

The expert advised that no reliable evidence existed to suggest that Greased Lightning affected exhaust emissions and that the only reliable data suggested that it had no effect.  The ASA concluded that the results showed that Greased Lightning had no beneficial effect on emissions.   

2. Upheld  

The expert noted that one of the tests was not detailed enough, showed poor fuel consumption both before and after the test and was not conducted on European vehicles now on sale.  The other test, which used Greased Lightning at a 20% concentration on old American cars, showed improved fuel economy at 135 °C only.  The expert advised that oil temperatures are more usually around 80 °C and oil temperatures exceeding 120 °C increase the risk of damage to the engine.  He advised that the extent to which the average motorist might note an improvement in fuel economy was questionable.  We considered that the claims were misleading.

3. Upheld  

The expert noted Greased Lightning at a concentration of 20% showed some reduction in wear but the tests were conducted on large US petrol engines from the 1990s with old-formulation oils.  No direct measurements of engine friction were undertaken.  The tests showed that friction might be reduced but that required an oil temperature of 135 °C.  The expert concluded that to extrapolate that the same effects could be observed today on modern cars and oils was unsafe.  No evidence was presented to substantiate the claimed improvement in engine quietness.  We concluded that the quieter engine claims were misleading and that, because the evidence substantiating the claimed reduction in engine wear was inadequate, the claimed savings in maintenance costs were also misleading.

4. Upheld  

No evidence was presented to substantiate the claim that Greased Lightning cleaned the internal parts of an engine.  The expert explained that in the mid-1990s all fuel in the UK became treated with detergent additives to control the build-up of carbon deposits in the intake system and combustion chambers and advised that any cleanliness claims purporting to be as a result of Greased Lightning would need to be validated against the latest detergent-treated fuel.  No evidence was presented to substantiate the claim that Greased Lightning resulted in improved acceleration or performance.  We considered that the claims were misleading.

5. Upheld  

No evidence was presented to demonstrate that the product was suitable for either petrol engines similar to those that would be used in Europe or for diesel engines of any type.  The expert advised that, because the requirements for oils for diesel engines were different from those for petrol engines, to extrapolate that the engine treatment was equally effective in either type of engine would be unwise.  The expert advised that the same reasoning applied to the fuel treatment.  We considered that the claims were misleading.

6. Upheld  

The expert advised that it was extremely difficult to believe that the fuel treatment would last 12,000 miles or 12 months.  He noted no data was presented to substantiate the claims that it worked at all, much less that it worked for 12 months.  We considered that the claim was misleading.

7.  Upheld   

No evidence was presented to substantiate the claimed overheating or that engines would start better when cold.  We considered that the claims were misleading.   

8.  Upheld  

No evidence was presented to substantiate the claimed compatibility.  We considered that the claim was misleading.

9.  Upheld  

The expert explained that the whisk and cog demonstrations were entertaining but were irrelevant to the requirements of a lubricant in an engine.  He added that, although the audiences attention was drawn to the free space between the gears in the gears demonstration, the fundamental question was whether enough oil was between the meshing gear teeth.  He noted enough oil seemed to be present.  The expert advised that the whisk demonstration was pointless and not relevant to an engine lubricant.  He advised that the dirty valve shown in the infomercial would have had an adverse effect on engine performance and the amount of deposits suggested serious problems with the engine.  The clean valve seemed unusually clean and the expert advised that he would not expect that degree of cleanliness from in-engine use of a clean-up detergent.  We considered that the claims were misleading.

Action

We concluded that the infomercial breached rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2. (Implications), 5.4.1 (Visual Techniques and special effects), 5.4.4 (Testimonials) and 5.2.6 (Environmental claims) of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code and that it must not be broadcast again without adequate substantiation for each claim it made.