ASA Adjudication on Warner Music UK Ltd
Warner Music UK Ltd t/a
The Warner Building28 Kensington Church StreetLondon
23 November 2011
Number of complaints:
A magazine ad, for a music cd, seen by the complainant on 20 August 2011. The ad contained a review of the cd by a magazine, which used the phrase, "A Rousing Roaring Return".
The complainant believed that the use of the phrase "A Rousing Roaring Return", which was not part of the text that appeared in the October 2011 magazine review, was misleading as it misrepresented the conclusions of the magazine October 2011 review.
Investigated under CAP Code (Edition12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.46 (Endorsements & testimonials).
CAP Code (Edition 12)
The ASA noted that Warner Music UK Ltd (Warner Music) disagreed that the use of the quote was misleading. Warner Music stated that while the quote was not contained in the review in the October 2011 issue of the magazine in which the ad appeared, it was a verbatim excerpt from a review of the first single from the album, which appeared in the August 2011 issue of the magazine. Warner Music stated that because the ad appeared in the same issue of the magazine which contained the album review, it would not have had prior knowledge of the album review's substance or contents. Warner Music believed it was reasonable for it to assume that the review of the album in the October issue would have been at least similarly positive to the review of the single in an earlier issue of the same magazine. Warner Music said it had no plans to use the ad in the future, and that using reviews of singles on album cds to advertise those album cds was a common industry practice.
The ASA considered that use of the review of one track on an album cd to advertise the whole album cd was not appropriate. The album cd had 11 tracks, and the review used referred only to one track. In this instance, the tone of the review of the album cd seen by the complainant differed from that of the single and we considered that the ad should have attributed the review to the previously released single.
We concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 3.7 (Substantiation). We also investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.46 (Endorsements & testimonials), but did not find it in breach.
The ad must not appear again in its current form.