ASA Adjudication on Powergen plc

Ad

A TV and press ad for Powergen energy.

a. The TV ad featured three men drinking in a bar. One man said "Yeah so Powergen are cheaper than ... actually it's bad karma to say it out loud." A footnote stated "Standard Dual Fuel Customers. Standard Domestic Consumption 3,300 kWh pa for electricity and 20,500 kWh pa for gas." Further on-screen text stated "Cheaper than Grittish Bass" while a voice-over stated "Positive energy from Powergen".

b. The press ad stated "Powergen are still cheaper than British Gas. Still cheaper for electricity. Still cheaper for gas. Still Cheaper for combined electricity and gas ... You can avoid any increases for the next four winters by switching to our Price Protection 2010 electricity or, if you have gas as well, our Price Protection 2010 dual fuel offer."

Issue

1. British Gas Trading Ltd (British Gas) and two members of the public complained that the claim "Cheaper than Grittish Bass" in the TV ad was misleading because they believed Powergen was not the cheaper provider of energy for existing British Gas customers at the time the ad appeared.

2. British Gas also complained that the press ad was misleading because they believed it implied the Powergen Price Protection Plan was cheaper than British Gas standard tariffs.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. Powergen said they implemented price increases for existing and acquisition standard customers on 21 August and British Gas had implemented their price increases for acquisition customers on 27 July and for existing customers on 4 September.  They told the ASA the TV ad appeared between 21 and 27 August and was not shown again until 11 September.

They submitted comparative tables showing savings on gas and electricity against British Gas prices for new customers up to and from 21 August.

Powergen conceded that, during the period between the implementation of their new prices (21 August) and the new prices for existing British Gas customers (4 September), their dual fuel unit rates for an existing British Gas customer were on average more expensive in some regions if a direct comparison of unit rates were made.  

They nevertheless argued that a comparison of unit rates alone was not reasonable as the process of changing suppliers usually took at least 28 days.  They explained that a consumer, acting in response to the TV ad, who switched from British Gas to Powergen, would have continued to pay the British Gas prices for at least the period between 21 August and 4 September until completion of their transfer, when they would receive the cheaper Powergen prices.  

They concluded by stating that any British Gas customer transferring to Powergen who met the stated qualifications would have benefited from a lower bill. Powergen said they did not believe the claim was misleading but told us they had no plans to use the ad again.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) told us they approved the ad in December 2005 for air in February 2006.  They confirmed that, at that time, Powergen were cheaper than British Gas.  The BACC said they advised Powergen that, should that situation change, they would need to take the ad off air.

2. Powergen told us they believed there was a clear distinction between the part of the press ad that compared their products to those of British Gas and the part of the ad that gave information about their 2010 Price Protection plan.  They stated that the comparisons with British Gas were clearly qualified.  Powergen said the second claim about Price Protection did not make any reference or comparison to British Gas products and asserted that the press ad was not misleading.

Assessment

1. Upheld  

The ASA noted the ad appeared before the price increase for existing British Gas customers on 4 September, but considered that it was unclear that Powergen would not be cheaper for those customers during the period 21 August to 4 September or that they would not benefit from cheaper prices straight away.  We noted the BACC had advised that the ad should be withdrawn if the situation changed and considered that most viewers would be likely to understand the claim that Powergen was cheaper in the context of British Gas and Powergen's tariffs at the time the ad was viewed.  We noted Powergen was not cheaper for existing British Gas customers at that time and concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing).

2. Upheld

We considered that most readers would understand the information presented in the press ad as a whole to relate to the headline claim "Powergen are still cheaper than British Gas".  We also noted the font and size of the text in the paragraph referring to price protected fuel offers was identical to that in the preceding paragraph that talked about the comparison between Powergen and British Gas prices.  We considered that the ad did not make sufficiently clear that the Powergen Price Protection prices were different from their standard current tariff and that the claim to be cheaper than British Gas did not therefore apply.  We considered that most readers were unlikely to make a distinction between the two messages of the ad and concluded that it was likely to mislead.

On this point, the press ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1 and 18.2 (Fair comparison), but not 3.1 (Substantiation).

Action

The TV ad should not be shown again in its current form.

Claims in future press ads should be presented in such a way as to avoid ambiguity.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)