ASA Adjudication on Procter & Gamble UK

Ad

Two magazine ads for Iams cat food.

a. One ad showed two differently sized cats, from behind, entering through one small and one large cat flap. The text stated "Vets know catering to all your cats' different needs isn't easy … 8 out of 10 vets recommend Iams* … ". Smallprint at the bottom of the ad stated "*Based on an independent survey of vets at the Congress of the BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association) on complete dry cat foods available in supermarkets (April 2007)".

b. A second ad showed a packet of Iams on a plinth, which bore the claim "VOTED No.1 BY VETS AVAILABLE IN SUPERMARKETS*"; packets labelled "Ordinary Cat Food" stood behind it. Smallprint at the foot of the ad stated "*Based on an independent survey of vets at the British Small Animal Veterinary Association Congress (April 2007). Voted No.1 recommended dry cat food brand available in supermarkets".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the:

1. claims "8 out of 10 vets recommend Iams" and "VOTED No.1 BY VETS" were misleading; she considered the ad implied vets recommended Iams over all other cat food whereas the BSAVA did not represent the whole veterinary profession and

2. ads misleadingly implied the BSAVA endorsed Iams, whereas she believed that BSAVA did not endorse any commercial products.

CAP Code

Response

1.  Procter & Gamble (P&G) said they did not believe the claims were misleading or implied all vets recommended Iams over all other cat food.  They explained that the claims were based on an independent survey of 334 vets carried out at the BSAVA congress in April 2007.  All participants in the survey were full-time practicing vets who regularly treated dogs and cats, and worked in clinics that had at least 50% of the clinic's business devoted to treating dogs and cats.  Responses were only recorded from those vets who provided their details and agreed that the results of the survey could be used for research and marketing purposes.

They explained that the vets could make more than one recommendation and supplied a copy of the survey questions and results to the ASA; the results showed that, in a survey of dry cat food brands available in supermarkets, 80% of practicing vets recommended Iams, and Iams was the brand that received the greatest number of recommendations.

P&G acknowledged that two brands of dry cat food received more recommendations than Iams but pointed out that those brands were not available in supermarkets and were only sold through veterinary practices and specialist pet food stores.  They said as the claims in the ads referred only to brands available in supermarkets these results could be excluded.  They pointed out that both claims, "8 out of 10 vets recommend Iams*"  and "VOTED No.1 BY VETS   AVAILABLE IN SUPERMARKETS*" were linked by an asterisk to small print which explained that the claims related to dry cat food brands that were available in supermarkets.  They believed consumers could not, therefore, be misled in that regard.  

They added that 88% of all pet food was purchased in supermarkets and believed the statements were highly relevant to the vast majority of pet food purchasers.

P&G believed the "8 out of 10 vets recommend Iams*" claim and accompanying smallprint did not  imply that vets recommended Iams dry cat food to the exclusion of all competitive brands, but rather of vets that recommended only brands available in supermarkets 8 out of 10 recommended Iams.  In addition, P&G provided dictionary definitions for the word "recommend" and pointed out that none implied or suggested that "recommend" could reasonably be understood to mean "recommended above all others".

They further believed the claim "VOTED No.1 BY VETS   AVAILABLE IN SUPERMARKETS*" and accompanying small print could only be interpreted to mean that Iams was the brand most recommended by vets that was available in supermarkets.  

2.  P&G believed it was unlikely that a consumer would infer from the ads that BSAVA endorsed the Iams brand, because BSAVA was mentioned only in the small print and not in a more prominent manner generally associated with endorsement.  They therefore believed the ad had not misleadingly implied endorsement of Iams by BSAVA.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA noted the complainant's concern that the claims "8 out of 10 vets recommend Iams" in ad (a) and "VOTED No. 1 BY VETS" in ad (b) were misleading, because the survey used as the basis of both claims was carried out across a small sample of members of the BSAVA, which itself only represented a proportion of the veterinary profession.  We considered, however, that because the ads made clear that the survey was carried out on vets at the BSAVA Congress and not on all BSAVA members or all vets, the ads were unlikely to mislead in that regard.

We noted the survey was carried out on 334 practicing vets who were asked if they would recommend any dry dog food, dry cat food or wet cat food brands.  In part, it asked participants to select the brand or brands of dry cat food that could be bought in a pet food shop or supermarket that they recommended from a selection of 11 main brands.  The results showed that, of the total selection, 31% of the participating vets recommended Iams.  Two other brands had more recommendations but these brands were only available in pet food shops.  The results also showed that, of those vets who recommended a dry cat food that was only available in supermarkets (a smaller sample size of 129 practicing vets), 80% recommended Iams.  

We understood that P&G had intended to convey that the survey results showed that 80% of vets who recommended a brand of dry cat food available in supermarkets recommended Iams and also that Iams was the supermarket brand most recommended.

We considered, however, that readers would interpret the claim "8 out of 10 vets recommend Iams" in ad (a) to mean that 80% of the vets surveyed recommended Iams in preference to all other brands of dry cat food available in supermarkets, and the remaining 20% recommended different brands or no brands.  We understood however that that was not the case.  We noted the survey questions allowed participants to select a number of brands; they did not select only one brand in preference over all others; and other brands scored 36%, 25%, 23%, 21%, 6%, 4% and 1% in the same category.  We considered, therefore, that the claim "8 out of 10 vets recommend Iams" in ad (a) was misleading.

We also considered that the claim "VOTED No. 1 BY VETS" in ad (b) implied, out of the vets surveyed, Iams was their number one choice, over and above all other brands; they may have voted for other brands but Iams was their number one choice.  However, although the results showed Iams received the highest number of recommendations for dry cat food available in supermarkets, because participants were able to make multiple selections, and were not asked to rank their choices, it was not possible to gauge whether Iams was their number one choice as implied.  Iams may have received the most recommendations but it could have been vets' overall second or third choice.  We further noted the claim was accompanied by text which stated "AVAILABLE IN SUPERMARKETS*".  We considered that readers could interpret this to mean that vets' overall number one choice of dry cat food was Iams and that this was conveniently available in supermarkets.  However, given that two other brands, which were not available in supermarkets, received more recommendations than Iams and we were unable to determine from the results which brand was vets' number one choice, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

2.  Not upheld

We understood that the BSAVA did not endorse commercial products.  Although we noted the complainant's concern, we considered that readers would understand that references to the BSAVA in both ads did not imply endorsement, but only that the "8 out of 10" and "VOTED N0. 1" claims were based on survey results compiled from some BSAVA members.  

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find them in breach.

Action

We told P&G to remove the claims "8 out of 10 vets" and "Voted No. 1 by vets" from future ads and advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team for their future advertising.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)