ASA Adjudication on SCA Hygiene Products UK Ltd

Ad

Three sales promotions for Bodyform sanitary protection.

a. A magazine ad stated “WIN* Stella Mc Cartney underwear every day at bodyform.co.uk.” The asterisk linked to a footnote that stated “*Closing date 11/04/10. Daily prize of £100 worth of Stella McCartney luxury underwear. Terms and conditions apply - see website for details.”

b. An online version of the promotion stated Click here for a chance to win £100 worth of Stella McCartney* luxury underwear every day until 11th April *This is not in association with Stella McCartney”. The click through stated “New Bodyform Natural The confidence to do what comes naturally. Discover the naturally soothing sensation of Bodyform Natural our unique new range with gentle Aloe Vera and comforting camomile. You can also enter our prize draw to win £100 worth of Stella McCartney* luxury underwear everyday! And don’t forget to pick up your free sample and share your natural beauty secrets with the rest of us! *This is not in association with Stella McCartney.”

c. Another magazine ad stated “Win Stella McCartney* underwear at bodyform.co.uk.” The asterisk linked to small print which stated “*This is not in association with Stella McCartney. Closing date 11/04/10.Daily prize of £100 worth of Stella McCartney luxury underwear. Terms and conditions apply - see website for details.”

Issue

Stella McCartney Ltd (SMC) challenged whether:

1. ad (a) was denigratory and took unfair advantage of the SMC brand, because they had associated the SMC brand with a personal hygiene product without permission;

2. ads (a), (b) and (c) were misleading and in breach of the Code because they implied SMC endorsed the Bodyform product without obtaining the necessary authorisation;

3. ads (b) and (c) were denigratory for the reasons in point (1) and were insufficiently qualified to make it clear the promotion was not endorsed by SMC.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. SCA Hygiene Products UK Ltd (SCA) said the ads could not be interpreted as denigratory to SMC because they believed CAP Code clause 20.1 only applied to comparative advertisements and the ad made no explicit or implied comparison with SMCs brand. They understood that the Code also prevented marketers from unfairly attacking or discrediting other advertisers, but could not imagine that readers would consider that SCA were attacking SMC by simply offering their product as a prize.

2.&3. SCA explained that it was customary for sales promotions to refer to the products of other manufacturers as prizes without obtaining their prior permission to do so. SCA argued that the ad only stated that the underwear could be won as a prize and believed that they did not imply there was a formal connection or relationship between themselves and SMC. SCA did not therefore accept that the ads could mislead readers.

SCA explained that SMC wrote to them after the start of the promotion. Although they did not agree that the promotion was misleading in any way, as a gesture of goodwill they agreed to amend the ads to include qualifying text that explicitly stated there was no formal connection or association between SCA and SMC.

Assessment

1.Not upheld

The ASA understood that SMC believed that it was denigratory to associate their underwear brand with a feminine hygiene product. We noted that the ads stated "WIN* Stella Mc Cartney underwear every day" and referred to SMC underwear as "luxury" in their small print. We considered that readers would understand the ad to be claiming that the SMC underwear was a product of value and a desirable prize. We considered that a reference to another manufacturers product as a prize, in the absence of additional disparaging claims, was unlikely to be interpreted by readers as discrediting that brand or company. We also noted that the Code did not require SCA to obtain SMCs prior approval before referring to their brand. We therefore concluded that ad (a) did not take unfair advantage of the SMC brand by referring to it without permission and was therefore unlikely to be interpreted as denigratory.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clauses 20.1 and 20.2 (Denigration) but did not find it in breach.

2.Not upheld

We noted that ads (a), (b) and (c) stated that SMC underwear was offered as a prize but also noted that they did not state that SMC had approved the promotion, endorsed SCAs brand, or that the competition was conducted in association with them. We considered that a reference to another brand alone would not be interpreted by readers as an endorsement. In the absence of other claims in the ad to imply an association or relationship between SCA and SMC, we considered that ads (a), (b) and (c) were unlikely to be seen as claiming SMC endorsed SCA.

We acknowledged SMCs concern that they had not given consent for SCA to refer to their brand. However, we considered that, because the ad did not state or imply that SMC endorsed SCAs brand or their competition, it was not necessary for SCA to obtain SMCs permission to mention their brand in the context of offering the products as prizes. We therefore concluded that the ads did not breach the Code.

On this point, we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 14.7 (Testimonials and endorsements) but did not find them in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted that ads (b) and (c) contained an additional qualification to make it clear the competition was not associated with SMC. However, because we considered that readers were unlikely to believe that SMC endorsed SCA or their competition regardless of that text, we concluded that ads (b) and (c) did not to breach the Code.

On this point, we investigated ads (b) and (c) under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 14.7 (Testimonials and endorsements) and but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)