ASA Adjudication on Thomas Sanderson Ltd

Ad

a. Two national press ads, for conservatory blinds and patio awnings, stated “For up to 30% off and for your FREE home consultation or brochure and consumer report, call …”

b. The “Roof & Window Blinds” section of the consumer report for conservatory blinds stated “Although some companies offer a roller blind option - these … often have gaps that reduces the overall effectiveness of the blinds.” The report went on to state “Many suppliers still use aluminium backed blinds - these are best avoided. They tend to perform less well than more modern fabrics and they are also difficult to clean. Unfortunately, when insects become trapped behind them, they cause them to oxidise and mark the fabric.” Another consumer report concerned patio awnings.

Issue

The Appeal Group Ltd challenged whether:

1. the reference to a "consumer report" in the press ads, and the presentation of the brochures as consumer reports, was misleading because it implied that they offered independent advice.  

2. the claim in ad (b) "Although some companies offer a roller blind option - these ... often have gaps that reduces the overall effectiveness of the blinds." was misleading, because the major factor in determining effectiveness was the fabric used.

3. the claim in ad (b) "Many suppliers still use aluminium backed blinds ... They tend to perform less well than more modern fabrics and they are also difficult to clean" was misleading, because aluminium backed fabrics performed at least as well as fabrics with alternative backings and some also had a protective coating which made them easy to clean, and

4. the claim in ad (b) "... when insects become trapped behind them, they cause them to oxidise and mark the fabric" was misleading, because a number of aluminium backed fabrics had a protective coating that prevented oxidisation.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Thomas Sanderson said their ads and consumer guide fell into the category of "informed opinion".  They believed people who responded to their advertising would realise that the report was one which they had published.   They argued that they had never stated that the consumer report they sent out was an independently published piece, and pointed out that the image of the consumer report in the ad was clearly printed alongside their logo.

2. Thomas Sanderson said fabrics and coatings applied to fabrics were key elements in the effectiveness of conservatory blinds, but pointed out that pure thermal performance without regard to the fit of the product could be misleading.  They maintained that consumer responses to the issue of gaps around conservatory blinds over the past 17 years had shown them that they were significant to the comfort of a living space both in temperature control and glare reduction.  They explained that they had sold roller blinds for 18 months in 1998-99 and their experience had been that it was impossible to produce roller blinds that had the same quality of fit as pleated products, either in the roof or on windows. As a result they had discontinued the product, knowing that the sag would result in less effective shading and heat loss.  They said the pleated products they produced fitted either rebated to the beads on glazing bars or tightly to the surface of glazing bars, which allowed them to minimise the amount of radiation that could enter into the conservatory.  They added that pleated roof blinds had support wire systems that counteracted the effect of gravity, and that with roller blinds for roofs the gaps resulted from the lack of an internal support structure, which meant they would sag and the sagging would become greater the larger the blind.  With roller blinds for windows, the gap was caused by the angle at which the roller fabric exited the roller tube, setting it away from the glass and glazing bars.     

Thomas Sanderson said effective shading consisted of blocking out radiation that caused heat build up in a conservatory and then removing it with effective ventilation.  The larger the gaps, the less effective the shading would be, irrespective of the material from which the shade was made.  They pointed out that blinds relied on the "chimney effect" to draw the superheated air (hot air trapped behind the shade) to be expelled by ridge ventilation:  the greater the gap around the blind, the greater the opportunity for superheated air to bleed around the blind into the living space, raising the temperature of the living space and reducing the product's effectiveness.  They said to maximise glare reduction a blind needed to cover as much of the glass and as close to the glass as possible, and that gaps allowed light bleed which was exaggerated by angles of incidence as light fell on occupants.

3. & 4. Thomas Sanderson agreed that aluminium blinds had the highest solar performance characteristics of any fabric blinds and said, for that reason, they used them extensively in commercial window-only applications.  They argued that they had spent many years replacing conservatory blinds made with aluminium-backed fabrics that failed in the way described in the consumer report.  They believed they had the right to state that in their consumer report.  

Thomas Sanderson conceded that laminated fabrics with a protective coating of the type described by the complainant did exist, but argued that they had drawbacks that made them unsuitable for application in conservatories.  They explained that the fabric was so stiff that it was difficult to cut into shapes and control, giving a comparatively poor quality of fit.  They added that the fabric could not be bunched discreetly when retracted, making it unsightly.  They offered to reword their ad to explain that it was possible to use coated aluminium fabrics but they were not used by many companies who fitted conservatory blinds because the material was less pliable and gave a poor fit compared to the alternatives available.  

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted ad (a) referred to a "FREE home consultation or brochure and consumer report".  We also noted the consumer reports themselves did not carry any logo or other branding or information that would identify them as having been produced by Thomas Sanderson.  We noted, furthermore, the reports contained sections such as "How do different blinds perform?" and "Choosing a supplier", which could be seen to be independent advice.  We considered that readers were unlikely to realise that the consumer reports were published by Thomas Sanderson.  We concluded that the ads and consumer reports misleadingly implied that the reports were independent and that they were not marketing communications.

On this point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers).  

2. Not upheld

We noted The Appeal Group marketed roller blinds and believed any gaps would be minimal in comparison to the overall area of a roller blind and that it was the fabric used that was key to effectiveness.  We also noted Thomas Sanderson's comments on the problems caused by gaps, but noted they nevertheless acknowledged the importance of choice of fabric and coating in determining the effectiveness of roller blinds.  We considered that readers would understand from the claim that gaps, in the advertisers' opinion, could be a problem but would not necessarily think that gaps were the principal or only factor in the effectiveness of a blind.  We concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

3. & 4. Upheld

We noted Thomas Sanderson acknowledged that aluminium-backed fabrics did perform well when used in traditional window blinds, but that they believed them to be unsuitable for conservatory blinds.  We also noted the consumer report explained, elsewhere, that that was because the coating would degrade rapidly when exposed to insect excrement and some cleaning products.  We noted aluminium-backed fabrics could be coated to prevent oxidisation.  We noted Thomas Sanderson believed the coating made the material difficult to work with and, therefore, did not use it.  We considered, however, that the ad implied that aluminium-backed coatings would inevitably be affected by insect marks.  Because they were not, we concluded that the claim was misleading.  

On these points, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Action

On point 1, ads (a) and (b) should not reappear in their current form.  We told Thomas Sanderson to make clear in future that the consumer reports were produced by them.

On point 2, no further action was necessary.

On points 3 & 4, the claim should not reappear in its current form. We welcomed Thomas Sanderson's proposed rewording.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)