ASA Adjudication on Newspost Ltd

Ad

A front page flash, on The Press (Dewsbury) newspaper, stated "Dewsbury & Mirfield Reporter: 11,554 copies and falling. Batley & Birstall News: 8,292 copies and falling. The Press: 33,000 homes a week! The paper that's the best read in Kirklees".

Issue

Yorkshire Weekly Newspaper Group Ltd (YWNG) complained that the comparison was likely to mislead, because it did not give the source for the figures and did not include the Spenborough Guardian, a third YWNG paper in the area covered by The Press (Dewsbury).

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The Press said the circulation figures for the Dewsbury & Mirfield Reporter and Batley & Birstall News were taken from the published ABC figures.  They said they were a free paper that was distributed to around 30,000 homes a week.  They sent a letter from TNT which stated that they distributed just under 30,000 copies of The Press to Verified Free Distribution (VFD) standard.  The Press said they also distributed more free copies on top of that and they also sold some copies of the paper in local stores and sent confidential information on the number of papers sold.

The Press said their paper and the Spenborough Guardian both covered Cleckheaton but so did a number of other papers, including the Yorkshire Post, the Yorkshire Evening Post, the Reporter Extra and the Wakefield Express.  They said they could not fit all of those titles into the small amount of space allocated at the top of the paper and had therefore chosen just the two papers stated.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the evidence sent by The Press. We noted the ad did not state the basis for The Press figures and considered that, particularly because the figures for the Dewsbury & Mirfield Reporter and the Batley & Birstall News were audited ABC figures, readers could understand that the figure for The Press was also based on data that had been otherwise independently verified.  We understood that, although The Press had argued that their figures were to VFD standard, the figures were not VFD certificated and had not therefore been audited by ABC, the only party which could issue a VFD certificate.  We contacted ABC, who stated that it was inaccurate to state that The Press had been distributed to VFD standards, because that could only be claimed by ABC registered publications after the issuing of a certificate by ABC which was subject to independent audit.  Because the advertisers had compared their unaudited, non-independently verified, circulation figures with YWNG's independently audited and certified figures, we considered that the comparison was misleading.  

We noted the Spenborough Guardian was not included in the comparison but considered that that was unlikely to mislead, because the ad made the elements of the comparison clear.  However, we also noted both the Dewsbury & Mirfield Reporter and the Batley & Birstall News were paid-for newspapers, whereas The Press was a free newspaper, and considered that, because The Press was distributed mainly as a free paper and the other two papers in the comparison were paid-for titles, the comparison was presented in the ad in such a way that it was likely to mislead.   

We also understood from ABC that the circulation figure of 11,554 for the Dewsbury & Mirfield Reporter represented a slight increase on the previous period.  We considered that the claim "Dewsbury & Mirfield Reporter: 11,554 copies and falling" was therefore inaccurate and misleading.  We also considered that, in the context of the whole ad, readers would infer from the claim "The paper that's the best read in Kirklees"  that The Press was read by more people than any other paper in Kirklees. We noted the claim was based on a comparison with the circulation figures for the Dewsbury & Mirfield Reporter and the Batley & Birstall News, and understood that circulation figures represented the number of copies distributed, not the number read.  We considered that, because we had not seen evidence to support it, the comparative claim "The paper that's the best read in Kirklees", was likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told The Press to ensure future comparative claims were both clear and fair.  We advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before making comparative claims in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)