ASA Adjudication on H20 Car Valeting Centres

Ad

A leaflet for car valeting was placed on a vehicle’s windscreen. It resembled a yellow parking ticket, bordered with black and yellow checks. The text read: “!PARKING FINE!” in large bold letters. Smaller text said “this is not a parking ticket. But you are entitled to a SPECIAL OFFER from the UK’s leading Car Valeting Company…” The ticket was filled out and signed “M Mouse”. Small boxed text at the bottom of the leaflet said: “This is not a parking ticket, but you are entitled to 25% off any valet Mon - Fri” and provided contact details. Overleaf, the leaflet showed the different car washes available, ranging from one star to four star, with the details and price.

Issue

Solihul Council Trading Standards objected that the ad caused distress when first seen, as it appeared to be a genuine parking ticket.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

H20 Car Valeting Centres (H20) felt it was clear from the presentation and layout of the leaflet that it was a marketing communication and not a parking fine.  They said they had altered the previous leaflet, by changing the colour, increasing the text size of "Special offer" and adding two more indications that the leaflet was not a parking ticket.  In light of the complaint, they accepted that this had not been made clear enough.  They stated the leaflets were designed in-house and they did not intend to use the same printers in future.  They said they had distributed 15,000 flyers over one week in a local area and felt the campaign had been successful and they were therefore disappointed to have received one complaint, because they did not wish to portray their business in a negative way.  They said they had monitored feedback closely during the period and felt that most people had found the leaflets amusing. They said they had no plans to run the campaign in the future.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the leaflet stated this is not a parking fine and considered that the leaflet, when read in its entirety, made clear that it was a marketing communication.  We noted, however, that it was very similar in colour, size, appearance and layout to a genuine parking ticket.  We considered there were sufficient similarities to lead recipients to initially believe, as they approached their vehicle and first saw the leaflet, that it was a genuine parking ticket.  

Because the leaflet was likely to be initially mistaken for a genuine parking fine, we concluded it was likely to cause distress to some recipients.

The ad breached CAP Clauses 9.1 (Fear and distress) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)