ASA Adjudication on BBP Marketing Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad for a polycarbonate drinkware manufacturer featured a picture of six different sized tumblers. Text above the picture stated "Safety thirst ... BBP Marketing is the only supplier of a complete and comprehensive range of unbreakable polycarbonate drinkware for the licensed and hospitality industry ... Protecting the public protecting you!".

Issue

John Artis Ltd challenged whether:

1. the claim "BBP Marketing is the only supplier of a complete and comprehensive range of polycarbonate drinkware" could be substantiated; and

2. polycarbonate drinkware was "unbreakable".

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. BBP Marketing Ltd (BBP) said the product range displayed in the ad was from their Remedy Range, which was manufactured only in polycarbonate material. They said there were eight sizes within the range and that no other manufacturer had that number of sizes within a single product range of polycarbonate drinkware. BBP explained that the ad had featured only six of the sizes from the range in order to keep the image uncluttered.

BBP said further to the Remedy products, they also offered a comprehensive range of other drinkware manufactured in polycarbonate. BBP submitted documentation that listed each individual polycarbonate item that they produced. This showed that, in addition to the Remedy range, BBP manufactured a further 28 polycarbonate drinkware products, bringing the total number of polycarbonate products available from their stock to 36. They also provided statements from three of the organisations they worked with, including two British police forces, which commended the range and standard of the polycarbonate drinkware manufactured by BBP.

2. BBP said they had been working alongside a number of police forces in England as part of the Best Bar None scheme. They explained that, as part of the scheme, their products had been tested under extreme conditions. BBP submitted independent video footage taken recently by the press and the police. One video showed an item from their Recovery Range being run over by a transit van. The item remained unbroken. Another video featured a policeman attempting to break one of their products by standing on it, throwing it and hitting it against a brick wall. Again, the item remained intact. BBP said they offered to replace any broken products returned by their customers free of charge, but that to date they had not received any claims for replacement goods.

Assessment

I. Not upheld

The ASA noted BBP manufactured polycarbonate drinkware across a variety of their product ranges, and that their Remedy Range was produced solely in polycarbonate. We also noted the 36 polycarbonate items were varied in size, shape and function, and that this total number was larger than the number of products in the drinkware ranges of other polycarbonate manufacturers. We recognised that the statements submitted by BBP showed that their polycarbonate range had been developed in consultation with the police and the hospitality industry in order to meet their specific requirements. Because BBP had a larger range than their competitors, and because we understood from those statements that BBP were regarded as offering a complete range of products suitable for the needs of those organisations, we concluded that on this point the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We understood that the Best Bar None scheme was a government backed initiative that aimed to reduce alcohol related crime and violence, as well as promote the responsible management of alcohol licensed premises. We also understood that encouraging licensed premises to replace their glassware with safer, unbreakable products was a key aspect of the scheme. We considered that the video footage featuring the policeman showed a BBP product being tested under conditions that replicated the kind of violent behaviour associated with excessive alcohol consumption. We also considered that the video footage featuring the transit van tested the product under conditions that went beyond those normally associated with the context in which alcohol related violence occurred. We acknowledged that in both cases the polycarbonate drinkware remained unbroken. We considered that, even if the polycarbonate products could be broken, they would have to be subject to extreme conditions that would not reflect the typical circumstances associated with alcohol related violence. Because of that we concluded that the claim "unbreakable polycarbonate drinkware" was unlikely to mislead in the context of the ad.

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.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)