ASA Adjudication on Archant Ltd

Ad

An e-mail, for Photography Monthly magazine, was entitled "A glimpse of the new look Photography Monthly and your associated marketing opportunities". Text underneath stated "... This is how the relaunch will benefit you ... An advertising campaign to 2.6 million readers via our Life titles ... In addition, Photography Monthly has secured An exclusive photo mag listing in Boots Increased news trade listings in Independents, WH Smith travel, Somerfields, Asda, Sainsbury and Borders. This means our print run increases to over 60,000- and your ads reach more photographers and sell more products for you ... If ever there was a time when you are seeking extra value from your advertising, this is likely to be it. I hope you agree that the March issue of Photography Monthly provides this for you ..."

Issue

Bright Publishing Ltd challenged whether Archant could substantiate the claims:

1. "An advertising campaign to 2.6 million readers via our Life titles";

2. "An exclusive photo mag listing in Boots"; and

3.  "Increased news trade listings in Independents, WH Smith travel, Somerfields, Asda, Sainsbury ...".

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Photography Monthly said the figure of 2.6 million readers related to the number of readers that would be seeing an ad to promote Photography Monthly; it was not the number of readers they were claiming the magazine had.  They said the advertising campaign consisted of an ad in each of the 53 Archant Life titles.  They said those titles were split into two types: free, controlled titles, which consisted of 12 titles with a combined readership of 427,000 based on a 2007 readership survey, and Newstrade, which consisted of 41 titles with a combined readership of 2.17 million, based on previous readership research and market knowledge, which gave an average reader per copy of 3.44.

Archant said the total figure was therefore 2.6 million readers and that was assuming that they would only run one ad in each of the titles.  They sent an e-mail from their national sales agency and the media pack from some of the Archant Life titles to illustrate their reader per copy figures.  They also sent an e-mail from the Circulation Manager of the North titles stating a reader per copy figure of 7 based on research over the last few years.  They also sent an internal e-mail stating that Archant Life SE and E worked on a reader per copy figure of 7.6, based on readership data from Lancashire Life.  They said their national sales agency advised them that they used a reader per copy figure of 3.44 because it was a conservative average from various pieces of readership research conducted in the past.

2.  Archant sent documents from their distributors which showed the number of copies of Photography Monthly being sold in Boots and a list of all the other titles sold in Boots; Archant pointed out there were no other photography titles on that list.  Archant said Photography Monthly benefited from being listed as a regional magazine because it took the place of their Life titles in places where they did not have a title in that region.  They asserted that it therefore had an exclusive photo magazine listing in Boots and explained why their competitors would not be able to see Photography Monthly listed in Boots.

3. Archant sent further documents from their supplier that they claimed supported the claim.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the figure of 2.6 million readers was based on historical research and market knowledge.  We also noted the purpose of the e-mail was to encourage advertisers to purchase advertising space in Photography Monthly, and considered that the target audience was likely to expect the claim to be based on data specific to Life magazines.

We considered that readers were likely to think that the figure of 2.6 million readers for all Life magazines, had been robustly measured.  We considered that Archants historical research and estimates based on market knowledge were not sufficient to support the claim and, because we had not seen robust up-to-date evidence to support the figure of 2.6 million readers, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We considered that the ad implied that an agreement was in place between Boots and Archant that allowed Photography Monthly an exclusive position in Boots stores as the only photography magazine and excluded other photography magazines from being sold in Boots.  We noted we had seen no evidence to show that that was the case and concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld

We considered that the ad implied that, at the time it was sent in January 2009, Archant had secured an increased listing for Photography Monthly in independent stores and the other stores mentioned from the magazines relaunch onwards.  We noted they had sent evidence that the magazine was sold in independent stores and figures for the number of copies sold in WH Smith travel, Somerfield and Sainsbury.  We considered, however, that that evidence was not sufficient to show that Archant had secured an increased listing for Photography Monthly in independent stores and the other stores mentioned from the magazines relaunch onwards.  We considered that we had seen nothing to verify that their news trade listings had increased in independent stores, WH Smith travel, Somerfield, Asda or Sainsbury and concluded that the claim had not been substantiated.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Photography Monthly to ensure claims were based on robust evidence in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)