ASA Adjudication on Continental Tyre Group Ltd

Ad

A national press ad for Continental Tyre Group Ltd showed a large picture of a tyre alongside text that stated "Stop with Continental tyres. Full stop." Smaller text at the bottom of the page stated "Nothing stops better than a Continental tyre." The company's website address and logo appeared underneath and to one side of the text.

Issue

Michelin Tyre plc and Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd challenged whether the claim "Nothing stops better than a Continental tyre" was misleading.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Continental Tyre Group Ltd (Continental) said that results from individual tyre tests varied because the parameters of the tests - such as the make and model of car used - were decided by the organisation or publication that devised the test. They said that, for that reason, they had taken a weighted average of 102 tests carried out across Europe in 2006 and 2007 for wet braking. Although each publication or testing body would control particular aspects of the test such as the car used, the driver, track surface, track condition and temperature and depth of water, they believed the parameters of each test were identical and included tyre brands of an equivalent quality and price to Continental.

Continental said they had also commissioned a report in Germany by TUV SUD, a technical testing, evaluation and certification organisation, which had tested Continental tyres alongside those of their competitors. They believed the report demonstrated that Continental tyres were superior in braking performance in both wet and dry conditions.

Continental said the claim "Nothing stops better than a Continental tyre" was being withdrawn and would not be used in future ads.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered readers were likely to understand the claim "Nothing stops better than a Continental tyre" as a "top-equal" or "joint-best" claim, meaning that Continental tyres were demonstrably as good as those of their main competitors, rather than a claim of outright superiority. We noted that the testing conducted by TUV had assessed one type of Continental tyre - the PremiumContact 2 - against six competitor tyres in both wet and dry braking conditions. In each case, the results were converted into a performance index for each tyre expressed as a percentage compared to the reference tyre. We noted that, in dry braking conditions, the Continental tyre achieved a rating of 105.3%, which was the highest rating of the seven tyres tested and 1.5% higher than the rating of the nearest competitor tyre. In wet braking conditions, two Continental tyres were assessed, achieving a rating of 107.1% and 106.9%, which were 1.8% and 1.6% higher respectively than the rating of the nearest competitor tyre. We understood, from taking expert advice in a previous investigation, that TUV's testing protocol was considered to be consistent and technically sound.

In the absence of any explanation or qualification, we considered the claim "Nothing stops better than a Continental tyre" suggested that no competitor tyre performed better in braking performance than any model of Continental tyre. We noted, however, that the TUV testing data related to one model of Continental tyre only in comparison with one model of tyre from each of six competitors. We considered the ad implied that the claim applied to all models of Continental tyre, but that the TUV data did not substantiate the claim that no competitor tyre performed better in braking performance than any model of Continental tyre.

We noted that Continental had supplied summaries of 102 braking tests in addition to the TUV data. We noted that when averaging out the results of the tests they had allocated three, two or one points respectively to the manufacturers who achieved first, second or third place in each of the tests. Their assessment of the results showed that Continental had achieved more first and second places than any of their competitors and that their weighted result was calculated at 2.5, which was the highest result among the eight best performing manufacturers. Their nearest competitor achieved 2.25.

Because Continental had supplied summaries of the tests only, we were unable to know the exact nature of the testing protocol, but we understood that each individual test was likely to have tested two or more categories of Continental tyre (small car, medium car or high performance car). Given the number of tests, however, we considered it unlikely that each of them had compared each model of Continental tyre against each model sold by each competitor. We noted that the results of the tests were weighted averages. We also noted, however, from the results of the individual tests, that while Continental were ranked in top position in 35 of the winter 2007 tests, competitors had been ranked above them in eight tests. In the summer 2007 tests, Continental were ranked in top position in eight tests, while competitors had ranked above them in 28 tests. We were also aware of tests published in the UK by motoring magazines and a consumer body that had not always found Continental tyres in equal first place in braking performance in comparison with their competitors.

We concluded that Continental tyres had not substantiated the claim that no competitor tyres achieved better brake performance than all models of Continental tyres.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We welcomed Continental's statement that the claim "Nothing stops better than a Continental tyre" was being withdrawn and would not be used in future ads. We told them to ensure future ads did not suggest that no competitor tyre achieved better braking performance than any model of Continental tyre.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)