ASA Adjudication on Portfolio Payroll Ltd

Ad

Two ads, in a trade magazine, for Portfolio Payroll recruitment services.

a. A full-page ad gave details of a selection of vacancies. Text stated "UK's largest payroll recruitment agency. More payroll professionals registering every day. More payroll jobs filled than anyone else."

b. A second full-page ad stated " ... here's why we are the market leaders: We fill more payroll jobs than any other agency. We have more payroll professionals registering than anyone else ... We have immediate access to 90% of payroll professionals looking for new positions at any one time ... But don't take our word for it. Let our clients tell you ..." Text continued, quoting three testimonials: 'Portfolio Payroll always exceeds my expectations. Their customer care is second to none', 'You made our task of finding a key team member effortless', 'I was particularly impressed with your accurate assessment of my requirement.'"

Issue

In relation to ad (a), Harley Recruitment Consultancy Ltd, Burnham Resources Ltd and Chase Moulande challenged the claims:

1. "UK's largest payroll recruitment agency";

2. "More payroll professionals registering everyday" and

3. "More payroll jobs filled than anyone else."

In relation to ad (b), Harley Recruitment Consultancy Ltd, Burnham Resources Ltd and Chase Moulande challenged the claims:

4. " ... we are the market leaders";

5. "We fill more payroll jobs than any other agency";

6. "We have more payroll professionals registering than anyone else" and

7. "We have immediate access to 90% of payroll professionals looking for new positions at any one time."

8. The ASA challenged the veracity of the testimonials.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 4. Portfolio Payroll Ltd (Portfolio Payroll) said they made a comparison of their turnover and that of their competitors, including the three complainant companies, during 2005 and 2006. They told the ASA that they had subscribed to a service that provided full sets of company accounts for any company trading within the UK, but explained that companies with a turnover of less than £5 million were exempt from filing accounts. Portfolio Payroll explained that all of their direct competitors fell into this category, arguing that the accounting information would otherwise have been available. They said their turnover was greater than £5 million and believed that they had outperformed their competitors in recent years. Portfolio Payroll had therefore concluded that their turnover was greater than their competitors'.

2. Portfolio Payroll said they advertised in the trade press and on all of the market-leading internet job boards. They also explained that they had a referral scheme that ensured that more payroll candidates registered with them every day and therefore believed the claim to be true.

3. & 5. Portfolio Payroll said they had based these claims on the information they had obtained from the database. They believed that, because their turnover was higher than their competitors', that showed that they were placing more candidates and therefore filling more jobs than other payroll agencies.

6. & 7. Portfolio Payroll conceded that they could not substantiate either of the claims and said they would amend them.

8. Portfolio Payroll said they were pro-active in securing feedback from clients and submitted three signed and dated testimonials in support of the claims in their ads.

Portfolio Payroll said they had not intended the ads to mislead.

Assessment

1. & 4. Upheld

The ASA understood that two out of three criteria had to be met in order for a company to be exempt from filing accounts with Companies House and that only one of those criteria related to turnover, the others being the number of employees and value of net assets. We considered that readers of the ads would interpret the claims "UKs largest payroll recruitment agency" and "... we are the market leaders" to mean that Portfolio Payroll had a higher turnover and placed more recruits than their competitors. We considered that the lack of published accounts was not sufficient evidence that their competitors' turnover was less than £5 million and noted Portfolio Payroll had not provided comparative figures to support the claim. Because Portfolio Payroll had not proved they were the largest and market-leading payroll recruitment agency, we concluded that those claims could mislead.

On these points, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1(Other comparisons).

2. Upheld

We noted Portfolio Payroll's belief that they registered more candidates every day because they advertised widely and because of their candidate referral system. We nevertheless considered that, because they had not submitted robust, comparative evidence to show that, the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Fair comparison).

3., 5., 6. & 7. Upheld

We considered that, in order to justify their claims, Portfolio Payroll needed to hold robust, comparative evidence and because they did not, we concluded that the claims were misleading. We nevertheless welcomed Portfolio Payroll's willingness to amend the claims "... fill more payroll jobs ..." and "... immediate access to 90% of payroll professionals ...".

On these points, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Fair comparison).

8. Not upheld

We noted the copies of the testimonials were signed and dated as required by the Code. We were satisfied that the testimonials were genuine and did not object.

On this point, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code clause 14.1 (Testimonials) but did not find them in breach.

Action

We told Portfolio Payroll not to use the ads again in their current form and advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for help with future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)