ASA Adjudication on Vaillant Ltd

Ad

A trade press ad for a solar-powered heating system was headlined: “The best solar system on the planet”. Further text gave more information about the advertised system, and stated: “Vaillant solar panels don't rely on sunshine. They use solar radiation, which penetrates clouds. That’s how they provide 50-60% of all household hot water requirements, helping to keep your customers comfortable all the year round, whatever the weather.”

Issue

Worcester Bosch Group (Worcester Bosch) challenged the claim "The best solar system on the planet".

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Fresh Page Ltd, Vaillant Ltd's agency, responded on their behalf.  Fresh Page said they did not consider the claim "the best solar system on the planet" to be a "best-selling" or performance claim capable of objective substantiation. They said the headline was a play on words and the ad did not attempt to make a comparison with other products.

Fresh Page said nevertheless that the Vaillant Solar Hot Water System had won the H&V News Renewable Product of the Year Award in 2007, and those awards were regarded as the most prestigious in the industry. They said the 2007 award had not been superseded by a comparable 2008 award. They said the ad had appeared in the trade press and they did not believe the claim would mislead, but would be understood as an expression of competitive spirit rather than an assertion of fact. They said they believed the joke in the headline made it clear that this was an expression of hyperbole and of opinion.

Assessment

Not upheld

We noted that the product was a solar powered heating system and considered the headline claim "the best solar system on the planet" was a play on words invoking both the solar powered mechanism and the image of the sun and the planets (the solar system). Because of that, and because further text in the ad did not make or imply comparisons with other products, we considered that most readers would understand the claim to be an expression of opinion rather than a "best-selling" or comparative performance claim capable of objective substantiation. We concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) 7.1 (Truthfulness) 8.1 (Opinion) and 19.1 (Comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)