ASA Adjudication on Home Shopping Selections Ltd

Ad

An ad in the Daily Telegraph was headed "THE HERCULES Pro-Power Winch - ALL THE MUSCLE POWER YOU NEED AT THE TOUCH OF A BUTTON - SAVE £80 - OUR PRICE ONLY £49.95." Body copy stated "Weighing just 23lbs and delivering an impressive 2,000lbs of torque, this powerful 120-watt 12-volt winch ... will uproot an unwanted tree or pull a vehicle out of a ditch ... The winch has a maximum pull rating of 6,000lbs when rolling on land, 2,000lbs from a standing start on land and 5,000lbs on water (maximum boat weight 8,000lbs). A photograph showed the winch attached to a cable that was wrapped around the base of a tree trunk. A caption within the photograph read "PACKS AN IMPRESSIVE 2000LBS OF TORQUE." An 0871 telephone number, website address and postal address and coupon for ordering were shown at the bottom of the ad.

Issue

A reader challenged the claims

1.  "2,000lbs of torque";

2.  "a maximum pull rating of 6,000lbs when rolling on land";

3.  "2,000lbs from a standing start"; and

4.  "5,000lbs on water (maximum boat weight 8,000lbs)" were misleading; and

5.  whether the ad should have stated a safe working load for pulling and lifting.

6.  He also challenged whether the ad showed the device being used with proper safety precautions.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Home Shopping Selections Ltd (HSS) said the ad was taken direct from their supplier, but sent no evidence to support the claims or to justify the way the device was shown being used.

They said they had no plans to use the ad again or to promote the product.

The Daily Telegraph said they did not believe the depiction of the product suggested to the lay person that it was being used irresponsibly.  They said that if the use shown was proved to be irresponsible, they would refuse to run the ad again.  They said that while they would question blatant misuse in an ad, they normally expected advertisers themselves to ensure that their products were shown being used correctly before placing an ad.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA did not consider HSS had proved the claims or had demonstrated that the ad showed proper safety precautions were used.

We were concerned that no substantive response had been received from HSS.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility), 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 10.1 (Safety).

Action

We welcomed HSS's assurance that they did not intend to use the ad again.  We told them to withdraw the ad.  We reminded them that they needed to hold and produce evidence if challenged by the ASA.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)