ASA Adjudication on Telegraph Media Group Ltd

Ad

A poster for telegraph.co.uk was headlined "Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website." Text underneath stated "The new look telegraph.co.uk The UK's most visited quality newspaper website." Small print at the bottom of the poster stated "Telegraph.co.uk was visited more times than any other newspaper website between Jul-Sep 06. SOURCE: Hitwise.co.uk, based on UK visits only."

Issue

The complainant challenged whether two months of data from Hitwise was sufficient to substantiate the claim "No.1".

CAP Code

Response

Telegraph Group (Telegraph) said they had based the claim on data compiled by Hitwise over a three-month period, July to September 2006; they sent a copy of that data. They asserted that the data showed telegraph.co.uk consistently received the highest number of visits from all UK Internet users compared to the websites of three other quality newspapers over that period. They argued that a full calendar quarter was a significant and appropriate amount of time from which to measure and compare statistical data and that it was therefore adequate to support the claim. They pointed out that many large companies used Hitwise data and that other industries had supported similar claims with a similar number of months of statistical data.

Telegraph sent a letter from Hitwise; it explained that they used a visit metric, which counted the number of times a particular website was visited in a given period; the same person could visit that website multiple times and be counted as a visit each time. The letter explained that another method to use was the unique user metric, which counted the number of unique individuals who visited a particular website in a given period. The letter also argued that both the visit and unique user metrics were valid and that Hitwise did not allow artificial counts to affect their results; it confirmed that their methodology was audited annually by a well-known firm of accountants.

Telegraph argued that, in the absence of any audited UK unique user figures, they had assessed the available research methods for tracking website usage and believed Hitwises method was the most robust, because it: was based on a sample of 8.4 million Internet users; was based on actual behaviour and was not reliant on the user installing software on their computer; was the most representative available because it was not skewed towards a certain demographic; and was the only method that was independently audited.

They asserted that the visit metric was industry agreed and, in the absence of audited UK unique user figures, was valid as a measure of website usage. They maintained that independently and properly audited figures on UK unique users were released only after they had finished their campaign. They said they would take audited UK unique user figures into consideration if they decided to run a similar advertising campaign in the future.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA considered that the meaning of the claim "No.1" was explained by the text "most visited", which in turn was qualified by small print explaining the source of the data and the period from which the data was taken.

We noted the Hitwise data sent by Telegraph showed the website telegraph.co.uk had received the highest number of visits from UK Internet users compared to the websites of three other quality newspapers over the period July to September 2006. We understood that Hitwise were a well recognised company that produced website visit statistics for a wide range of companies. We considered that Telegraph had substantiated that telegraph.co.uk was visited more times than any other quality newspaper website between July and September 2006.

We noted Telegraphs comments regarding the availability of unique user data; however, we understood that audited UK unique user figures were available at the time the ad was produced. We also understood, however, that there was no agreed industry standard metric for measuring website statistics and noted the ad did not state "most visitors" but "most visited", which allowed for the possibility of people making multiple visits. We therefore considered that it was acceptable for Telegraph to use the visit metric instead of the unique user metric to support the claim.

We concluded that, because the ad made clear that the "No.1" claim was based on the number of visits to the site and also made clear the source of the data and the period from which the data was taken, the claim was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)