ASA Adjudication on Michelin Tyre plc

Ad

A national press ad feature, a poster and a magazine ad for Michelin tyres.

a. The national press ad was headed "The Michelin Man Chronicles". Below, text stated " 'Michelin, the tyres that last, and last, and last ...' By choosing Michelin you are opting for tyres that last longer. An immediate benefit, that also indicates a responsible attitude. Choosing products that last longer reduces consumption of valuable raw materials and creates fewer products to be recycled ..." Further down it stated "Up to 25% more miles! Michelin tyres win by quite a distance. According to independent tests carried out in 2005 by the French institute CERM, Michelin tyres were shown to last significantly longer than rival makes on average: up to 25% more. The latest tests conducted by the German certification body, TUV, confirmed these results, showing that the new Michelin Primacy HP lasts 25% longer than it's [sic] top competitor."

b. The poster featured the Michelin Man character running beside a tyre. It claimed "Michelin tyres last up to 25% longer*" The asterisked footnote said "*Based on independent tests in 2004/2005 compared to the average of our leading competitors".

c. The magazine ad, in trade magazine Tyres & Accessories, was the same as the poster but had added text printed at the bottom. It stated "Twice as many people consider buying Michelin than any other tyre brand!* And because our tyres last up to 25% longer it's never been easier to sell Michelin and give your customers great value for money!" The symbol was linked to text which said "*Michelin Brand Image and Awareness study 2004".

Issue

Leagus Delaney, on behalf of Goodyear Tyres, complained that:

1. the claim "Michelin tyres last up to 25% longer*" in the poster and magazine ad, and similar claims about tyres lasting longer in the press ad, exaggerated the efficacy of Michelin tyres because they believed they related to only one Michelin brand, the Primacy HP.

2. the research data used to back the claim was not sufficiently robust, because they understood that the test was only conducted on one tyre size and against a limited number of competitors' products.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Michelin Tyre (Michelin) explained that the claims in the ads were based on several independent tests carried out by the French Institute CERM and the German certification body TUV. Michelin said Goodyear was mistaken to suggest that the claims were based on test results for only one brand, the Primacy HP. They said the tests had involved a number of Michelin tyre brands, chosen because they accounted for the largest share of Michelin sales in Europe.

2. Michelin believed their tests were sufficiently robust. They explained that they tested one tyre size (dimension) from each tyre line tested. They believed this was in keeping with industry practice and understood that of 209 similar tests carried out by car publications, 86% were tested on only one tyre size. Michelin said their tests were carried out against a large number of competitors' tyres. They explained that, for each tyre line tested, the testing bodies had compared the tyres produced by manufacturers that Michelin considered to be its leading competitors in relation to that particular tyre line at the time. They said the selection was made on the basis of those brands that a consumer, requiring a similar high quality product, would choose as a substitute for the relevant Michelin product. They said they relied on the data from the engine axle tyres in the TUV testing, because they believed that was more reliable for longevity tests. They provided copies of the eight research tests to the ASA.

Assessment

The ASA sent Michelin's substantiation to an independent expert for analysis.

1. Not upheld

Our expert noted the testing referred to in the poster (b) and the trade magazine ad (c) covered a wide range of tyres and sizes. He said a range of eight Michelin tyre lines in five different sizes were tested against a total of 41 competitor tyres, representing 16 different makes and the claims in the poster and the trade magazine ad were based on the average of all competitors' test results compared to Michelin. Our expert believed that, when taken together, the test results justified the claims in the poster and trade magazine ad. The ASA acknowledged that ads (b) and (c) stated that Michelin tyres lasted "up to" 25% longer and that the basis for this claim was explained with text stating "Based on independent tests in 2004/2005 compared to the average of our leading competitors". We noted the headline claim was linked to a footnote that explained the basis for the comparison and concluded that, because the basis of comparison was made clear, the claims in ads (b) and (c) did not mislead.

Our expert noted, however, that the press ad (a) referred specifically to two tests, one by CERM in 2005 and one by TUV on Primacy HP tyres. He said the testing in both was on two sizes of tyre, both dimensionally close. He said both tests had shown that the performance of the Michelin tyre exceeded the average of the tested competitor tyres by more than 25%. However, we noted ad (a) had claimed "... TUV ... (showed) that the new Michelin Primacy HP lasts 25% longer than it's [sic] top competitor." Our expert pointed out that, if using the same comparison method as the other tests, the Michelin tyre only lasted approximately half that percentage in a direct comparison with its top competitor.

We noted Michelin's assertion that they had relied on data from the engine axle tyres because they believed that was more reliable for longevity tests. Because the TUV tests showed the Michelin Primacy HP tyres outperformed their nearest competitor by 25% based on the performance of the tyres on the rear, and most worn, axle (the engine axle tyres), we concluded that press ad (a) did not mislead.

On this point, we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons) but did not find them in breach.

2. Upheld

Our expert considered that the methodology used in the testing was consistent and technically sound. He said that all possible variations had been eliminated, in particular, differences in vehicle geometry and variations in driving technique by changing tyres and drivers between vehicles and by rotating positions in convoys. He said all tyres were subjected to identical conditions and there was no attempt in the tests to distort the results by making unfair comparisons. He said five different tyre sizes were tested from eight Michelin lines against 41 competitors' tyres.

We concluded that, because the eight tests were conducted on more than one size and on a significant number of competitor tyres, the claims in ads (b) and (c) were not misleading. However, as stated in point one, we concluded that ad (a) was misleading because the tests, although technically sound, were based on the testing of only two Michelin tyres.

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons). We investigated ads (b) and (c) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons) but did not find them in breach.

Action

Press ad (a) must not be used again. No further action necessary in relation to poster (b) and magazine ad (c).

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)