ASA Adjudication on NICEIC Group Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad, for NICEIC Group, was headlined "THE ONLY REAL VIEW OUR COMPETITORS HAVE OF US IS FROM BEHIND". A table entitled "When I become a member will I get:" compared NICEIC with NAPIT (National Association for Professional Inspectors and Testers) and ELECSA. Features compared included "Discounted books and manuals? City & Guilds approved training courses available UK wide? The use of a highly respected industry branding? Full marketing support? Comprehensive range of discounted insurance cover? Competitively priced equipment? Regular discounted offers? Access to the Largest Recognised Voluntary Regulatory Body in the UK? Customer sales contact dedicated support team?" For each feature, the column stated "Yes" for NICEIC Approved Contractor and either "No, "?" or "Yes" for NAPIT and ELECSA. A footnote stated "At time of going to press, we believe these details are correct". Further text stated "AND YES WE'RE STILL THE BEST WHICHEVER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT If you would like more details on how you can become registered with the Largest Voluntary Regulatory Body in the UK call 0870 013 0382 or visit www.niceicgroup.com".

Issue

NAPIT objected that the comparison was misleading and denigratory because:

1. they offered discounted books and manuals through an online shop and had been doing so since September 2007;

2. they ran a series of City & Guilds training courses at a number of locations around the UK;

3. they were approved by the Department of Communities and Local Government and therefore considered themselves a respected industry brand;

4. they distributed an annual members pack and provided marketing material to members;

5. their members had access to a range of discounted insurance products;

6. they offered a comprehensive range of equipment and tools exclusively to members through an online shop;

7. they offered regular discounted offers to members through an online shop; and

8. they employed dedicated Customer Sales and Customer Services teams to support members;

9. NAPIT challenged whether the claim "the largest recognised voluntary regulatory body in the UK" was misleading and whether it could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

NICEIC said the ad was a one-off placement and they had no plans to repeat it.  They said it appeared in a trade journal for electrical contractors, typically involved with electrical installation work.  They explained that the ad was addressed to professional electricians who were considering applying to an accreditation body that could certify the quality of their services.  They said relatively few such bodies existed, and listed the four major players in order of number of registrants and market profile.  NICEIC was first and NAPIT second in the list.

NICEIC argued that electrical professionals would be well aware of the various certification options and would be familiar with each of the organisations named in the ad.  They claimed that each of the criteria in the comparison table was objectively relevant and each question answered fairly.  They sent a previous ad by NAPIT which they believed was misleading and unfair, and said their own ad was a response to that.

NICEIC claimed that a question mark in the comparison table was not pejorative, but meant merely that the answer was not known or was something the reader should decide for themselves.  They said in a number of instances a definite answer was not known because it could be found out only by becoming a member of NAPIT and having access to the members-only password-restricted area of their website, and in other cases the question had an element of subjectivity, for example whether marketing levels could properly be described as "full" or whether equipment was priced "competitively".  They pointed out that in a number of comparisons they had answered "no", and that had they wished to convey a pejorative message they would have answered "no" where they had used question marks.  NICEIC added that the use of question marks should be seen in the context of the information NAPIT were prepared to disclose to prospective members.  They pointed out that the page on NAPIT's website entitled "Why join NAPIT?" stated "Coming soon", and maintained that if NAPIT would not disclose fundamentally relevant information to prospective members on the website, it was not unreasonable for a comparison table to use a question mark.

1., 6. & 7. NICEIC said their training and publications catalogue was in the public domain.  They explained that they sold their products and services to the general public at one price and to NICEIC members at a lower price.  They said that, by contrast, NAPIT offered no such differential pricing.  They argued that NAPIT's "online shop" was merely a password-protected area of their website, accessible to members only and not to the general public, and therefore there was no discounting; they offered goods and services to members at a standard price, and there was nothing in any NAPIT leaflets or open areas of their website to indicate an offering of discounted books or manuals.

2. NICEIC said before publishing the ad they had researched whether NAPIT had run any City & Guilds approved training courses. They had found one ad from November 2007 that stated "What City & Guilds courses will NAPIT be offering?" but had seen nothing to suggest that any such course had taken place.  They said they had checked the NAPIT website as well as the trade press, where they would expect to find advertising for such training as well as reportage of training events that had been run in the past, and had found no record of any courses.  NICEIC said they had been unable to find any City & Guilds approved courses run by NAPIT, let alone anything to suggest that such courses had been run on a UK-wide basis.

3. NICEIC argued that they were the undisputed industry leader, having formed in 1956 and comprising 24,000 registered installers.  They said that figure included approximately 70% of the electricians registered under Part P of the Building Regulations, the main area where NICEIC, NAPIT and ELECSA were in competition.  They added that NICEIC Group's Approved Contractor Scheme was accredited directly by the UK Accreditation Service.  They claimed that in both commercial and public tender documentation it was usual for tender documents to specify that electrical contractors had NICEIC accreditation, and commented that they had rarely seen NAPIT or ELECSA accreditation as a tender qualifying criterion.  They claimed that at industry conferences exhibitors vied for space as close as possible to that of NICEIC, which was not the case with the other two organisations.

NICEIC said the claim "highly respected" of necessity had subjective elements, and for that reason they inserted a question mark indicating "you decide" to prospective members, rather than "no" as used elsewhere in the table, notwithstanding their own subjective belief that NAPIT did not command widespread respect in the industry.  They pointed out that NAPIT in their own ad had chosen to use a cross as opposed to a tick on substantially identical points, indicating "no" rather than "you decide".

4. NICEIC said they gave full marketing support to their registrants and asserted that they had found no evidence to suggest that NAPIT offered marketing support at all, let alone full support.  They maintained that if NAPIT distributed an annual members' pack that would still fall far short of full marketing support; they believed, however, they would have been aware of any significant material they provided.  They claimed a NAPIT member told them he had received no marketing material from them months after his application.  NICEIC pointed out that they had inserted a question mark to indicate "you decide".

5. NICEIC listed the insurance services they provided to registrants, which included employers liability, public liability, professional indemnity, tools and transit, commercial vehicle, excess layer, contract works and plant, personal accident, legal expenses, financial loss, office, manufacturing and retail.  They said NAPIT referred to insurance services on their website but only to the availability of public liability, van, home and private car insurance.  They argued that they would not regard that as comprehensive even if actually provided.  They added that there were no details of the level of discounting available to NAPIT members or of how to access the products.  They said, given the lack of information, a question mark inviting prospective registrants to decide was the only fair indication to give in that part of the comparison table, and that given the use of "no" in other parts of the table it would be clear to readers that they were saying that the position was unclear and that they should decide.

8. NICEIC explained the level of support they provided and said there was no doubt in their minds that NAPIT could not provide anything like that level of support for its members.  They argued that it was difficult to ascertain from NAPIT marketing materials or their website what, if anything, they delivered in terms of customer support. They said for that reason, notwithstanding their belief that NAPIT support in that area was minimal at best and non-existent at worst, they used a question mark in the comparison table, which would invite prospective members to decide what was appropriate and fair.

9. NICEIC claimed that it was clear from the context of the comparison table that they were talking about the electrical contracting industry.  They said the three largest organisations were those compared in the ad, and that NICEIC had in excess of 24,000 registered contractors which was about 70% of the relevant market, according to figures published by the Department of Communities and Local Government and other respected third parties.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted NICEIC sold books and manuals to the general public and, at a discount, to members.  We understood that books and manuals sold by NAPIT were available to members at a discount and that they were also available to the general public but not through NAPIT.  We noted NAPIT provided an example of a publication that they sold at a discount from the publisher's price.  We noted NAPIT's online store was restricted to members only, but considered that because the ad promoted the benefits available to members, the "no" against NAPIT in the comparison table, which implied that NAPIT members would not have access to discounted books and manuals, was misleading and denigratory.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors) and 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage).

2. Upheld

We understood that NAPIT ran City & Guilds-approved training courses on the 17th Edition Wiring Regulations.  We noted they sent ads that showed the course dates and locations throughout England, Scotland and Wales.  They said they were advertised in mailshots and in several publications including their own bi-monthly magazine.  We noted NICIEC's argument that they had not been able to find evidence that NAPIT were running such courses.  We considered, however, that because NAPIT did run City & Guilds-approved training courses UK-wide, the "no" in the comparison table was misleading and denigratory.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors) and 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage).

3. Not upheld

We noted NICEIC had used a question mark in NAPIT's column in the comparison table.  We also noted NAPIT's comment that they were approved by the Department of Communities and Local Government and therefore considered themselves to be a respected industry brand.  We considered that readers would understand that a claim to be a respected brand within the industry was a subjective one and that NICEIC were expressing their own opinion on that point.  We also considered that readers would see the question mark as an invitation to make up their own mind, rather than as an assertion that NAPIT were not respected.  We concluded that the claim did not denigrate and was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors) and 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage) but did not find it in breach.

4.  Not upheld

We understood NAPIT's annual members' pack included vehicle stickers, customer leaflets, and details on their corporate advertising scheme for directories, and that their bi-monthly members' magazine included articles to assist members with marketing.  We considered prospective members would see the claim "full" support as a subjective one and would understand that NICEIC were expressing their own opinion on that point.  We concluded that the use of a question mark in that column did not denigrate and was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors) and 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage) but did not find it in breach.

5.  Not upheld

We noted the NAPIT website now stated that member benefits included discounts on public liability, professional indemnity, and van insurance, as well as discounts on home and private car insurance for members and their families.  We also noted they sent ads from a trade publication that referred to discounted insurance.  We noted the range of discounted insurance cover offered by NICEIC appeared to be more comprehensive than that offered by NAPIT; we considered, however, that readers of a trade publication would be in a position to make up their own minds as to what constituted comprehensive insurance for people in their industry.  We also considered that readers would understand from the use of the question mark that they were invited to compare the two organisations' levels of insurance cover and to make up their own minds.  We concluded that the question mark against the column "Comprehensive range of discounted insurance cover?" did not denigrate and was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors) and 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage) but did not find it in breach.

6. & 7. Not upheld

We noted NAPIT offered a range of equipment and tools exclusively to members, along with regular discounted offers, via their online shop which had access limited to NAPIT members.  We also noted NICEIC's argument that a question mark in the comparison table indicated that information was either not known or subjective and open to interpretation by the reader.  We noted at the time the ad appeared the NAPIT website did not contain information about the offers available to members, and that the ad stated "At the time of going to press, we believe these details are correct".  We also noted, however, NAPIT's rejoinder that they advertised in nearly every issue of Professional Electrician magazine and regularly identified the benefits available to members.  We noted the examples NAPIT sent of ads from 2006 and 2007 that stated "Discounted members test certificates... huge savings on training, equipment and clothing" and "serious discounts from equipment manufacturers..."  We considered, nevertheless, that readers would understand from the question mark that NICEIC believed the listed benefits were definitely offered by them but might not be available from NAPIT, or, if available, might not meet the same criteria, and would not infer that the benefits were definitely not provided by NAPIT.  We concluded that the question marks against the categories "Competitively priced equipment?" and "Regular discounted offers?" did not denigrate and were unlikely to mislead.

On these points, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors) and 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage) but did not find it in breach.

8. Not upheld

We noted at the time the ad appeared NAPIT's website did not indicate to non-members the level of customer support available.  We considered that readers would see the entry in the comparison table as highlighting NICEIC's own services, and that they would understand the question mark to indicate that NICEIC believed there was uncertainty as to whether the same level of support was available with NAPIT.  We concluded that the claim did not denigrate and was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors) and 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage) but did not find it in breach.

9. Upheld

We noted NICEIC believed the claim would be seen in the context of the electrical contracting industry.  Although we acknowledged the ad appeared in a trade publication, we considered that many would not see the claim "the largest recognised voluntary regulatory body in the UK" as industry-specific.  We considered that readers might infer that NICEIC was the largest such body across all trades and industries nationwide.  Because NICEIC had not shown that they were, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors)

Action

On points 1 and 2, we told NICEIC not to use the claims in future advertising and reminded them of their responsibility to hold substantiation to support their claims.

On points 3-8, no further action was required.

On point 9, we told NICEIC to amend their advertising to make it clear that they were the largest such body within their industry.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)