ASA Adjudication on Electrolux Home Products Ltd

Ad

An ad for an Electrolux Intensity vacuum cleaner in ERT magazine featured an image of the product above text that stated "THE EVOLUTION OF THE VACUUM CLEANER IS NOW COMPLETE ... The new 'Intensity' is so powerful, it surpasses the suction power of the leading upright in the UK by over 50%, giving your customers an intense deep clean".

Issue

Dyson Ltd, who believed the "leading upright in the UK" referred to the Dyson DC14, challenged whether the claim "The new 'Intensity' is so powerful, it surpasses the suction power of the leading upright in the UK by 50%, giving your customers an intense deep clean" was misleading, because they believed the suction power of the DC14 was greater than that of the Electrolux Intensity, which they believed decreased more quickly with use, and because it implied that the Electrolux Intensity cleaned better than the DC14.

Investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors).

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Electrolux Home Products Ltd (Electrolux) said the suction power of the Intensity had been tested by an independent testing laboratory before the ad was published. They submitted copies of the test report for the Intensity, as well as copies of test reports for other vacuum cleaner products. They also submitted a copy of a certificate issued by the independent test laboratory.

Electrolux said the tests were a fair and effective comparison of the Intensity with other vacuum cleaners of similar specification, power and price. They said the results of the tests showed that the Intensity produced far greater suction power than any other comparable Dyson product currently available on the market. Electrolux said that, while they accepted that all vacuum cleaners would lose some suction power during use, it was their view that even when the Intensity had been in use for some time, for example when the bag needed to be changed, the suction power of the Intensity would still exceed that of comparable products by some 50% or more.

Electrolux said they were confident that, given the superiority of the suction power performance of the Intensity, it would deliver a superior cleaning performance to that of any comparable product.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA took expert advice. The expert said the independent test data supplied by Electrolux was reliable and of good quality.

The expert explained that suction power alone did not give the true measure of cleaning performance, even when measured at the nozzle for upright cleaners. He said the effectiveness of the brush roll or agitator was more significant, because it was that rotating element that loosened the dirt and brushed it into the nozzle. The expert explained that it was then the airflow and not suction power that became more relevant in transporting the dirt into the receptacle. The expert explained that suction power was a result of both suction (negative pressure) and airflow, and that it was possible to have a high suction power value with high suction and relatively low airflow or vice versa. He said it was the latter case that would be more conclusive in determining overall cleaning performance on floors. The expert pointed out that high suction power did not necessarily equate to good cleaning performance, and that equally a reduction in cleaning performance did not necessarily result from a reduction in suction power due to bag 'clogging'.

The expert believed the suction power test data submitted by Electrolux was not sufficient to support the claim that the Intensity gave an "intense deep clean", because it did not include test data relating to cleaning performance.

We noted the independent test data submitted by Electrolux. Although we had not seen up-to-date comparative sales figures to support the market leadership claim made in the ad, we acknowledged that the independent laboratory test data provided by Electrolux showed that, when tested in accordance with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 60312 clause 2.8, the Intensity did have 50% more suction power than Dyson's DC14 as well as the other vacuum cleaners that Electrolux had tested. Nevertheless, we understood that it was the effectiveness of the agitator and the measure of airflow, rather than suction power alone, that was most relevant in assessing a vacuum cleaner's cleaning performance. We understood that that was because the action of the agitator loosened the dirt and brushed it into the nozzle, and that it was airflow that then transported the dirt from the nozzle into the receptacle.

We considered that the claim made in the ad linked suction power to cleaning performance, and therefore implied that the "intense deep clean" provided by the Electrolux Intensity was as a result of the product's suction power. We also considered that, by linking the '50% more' suction power claim to the cleaning performance claim, the ad also implied that the Intensity cleaned better than the DC14 and the other tested vacuum cleaners. We noted that Electrolux had sent us data that related only to the suction power of the Intensity and not to its dust removal ability, and we therefore did not consider that those test results alone were sufficient to support the cleaning performance claim made in the ad. Because we had not seen data that measured the cleaning performance of the Intensity, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors).

Action

We told Electrolux not to make claims relating to the suction power of the Intensity unless they also held data that demonstrated the dust removal ability of the product. We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team when preparing future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)