ASA Adjudication on Unilever UK Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for Flora pro-activ, stated in bold "3 OUT OF 4 DOCTORS WOULD RECOMMEND FLORA NEED WE SAY MORE? PRO.ACTIV MINI DRINK". Smaller text below stated "150 doctors were shown the ingredients and nutritional information of a range of cholesterol lowering mini-drinks. 75% of them were so impressed by Flora pro-activ that they said they'd recommend it to anyone who wants to lower their cholesterol through dietary changes. To learn more about Flora pro-activ visit floraproactiv.co.uk".

Issue

1. Four complainants, two of whom were doctors, challenged whether the claim "3 OUT OF 4 DOCTORS WOULD RECOMMEND FLORA ... PRO.ACTIV MINI DRINK" was misleading, because they believed the sample size was too small and did not represent doctors views in general.  

2. The ASA challenged whether the claim "3 OUT OF 4 DOCTORS WOULD RECOMMEND FLORA ... PRO.ACTIV MINI DRINK" misleadingly implied that three out of four doctors participating in the survey said they would recommend Flora pro.activ over and above other brands of cholesterol-lowering mini drinks.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Flora pro-activ (Flora) said the study upon which they based the claim was carried out by an independent research agency in 2006.  They submitted a copy of the survey questions and results, as well as a copy of the information cards on Flora pro-activ and two other cholesterol lowering mini drinks which were shown to the 150 randomly selected UK GPs who were surveyed.  Flora said a similar number of GPs were also surveyed in four other countries but the 75% claim pertained to the UK responses only.  

Flora said it was common practice for consumer-based food and drink quantitative research to be undertaken using sample sizes of 150.  They understood that using such a sample size was considered representative and was generally accepted practice amongst quantitative research agencies.  Flora said they, and their research agency, were confident that the sample represented a fair cross-section of GPs in the UK and was large enough to support the claim.

2. Flora said the market for cholesterol-lowering food and drink products was highly competitive and they had sought to differentiate Flora pro-activ from other products in a way that was credible and easy for consumers to understand.  They explained that they had sought to do this by drawing on the endorsement of GPs through an independently conducted survey.  Flora pointed out that the way in which GPs were given information about the products included in the survey allowed them to recommend brands other than Flora pro-activ and ensured that no one brand was given a commercial advantage.   They said the claim was not intended to mean that the doctors surveyed would recommend Flora pro-activ to the exclusion of other brands but rather that, in the context of the other brands, the GPs were still willing to recommend Flora pro-activ.

Flora disagreed that the claim implied that each recommendation by a UK GP taking part in the survey was tantamount to a choice of one brand over another; they believed it was simply a reference to the recommendation of a cross-section of UK GPs and was not misleading by omission.  They explained that they had sought guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing the ad as part of their commitment to adhering to the Code.

Flora said they had no plans to use the ad again.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the information submitted by Flora and understood that 75% of the 150 UK GPs surveyed had said they would recommend Flora pro-activ to their cholesterol concerned patients.  We considered that, because the ad made clear the number of UK GPs surveyed, readers were likely to realise that the claim "3 OUT OF 4 DOCTORS ... " was based only on the 150 doctors surveyed, not on all doctors.  

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted Flora's comments and acknowledged that they had sought guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing the ad.  

We considered that the ad suggested that 75% of doctors taking part in the survey said they would recommend Flora pro-activ over and above all other brands, and the remaining 25% said they would recommend different cholesterol-lowering mini drinks or would recommend no product.

We nevertheless understood that the survey questions allowed respondents to recommend more than one product and noted another cholesterol-lowering drink was recommended by over 50% of the UK GPs surveyed.  We therefore concluded that the ad misleadingly implied that 75% of doctors in the survey had said they would recommend Flora pro-activ in preference to all other brands of cholesterol-lowering mini drinks.     

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

Action

We noted Flora had no plans to use the ad again but told them that, if using a similar approach in future, they should avoid giving the impression that their brand was recommended to the exclusion of others if that was not the case.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)