Background
Ad description
A TV ad shown on 4 June 2011, for the Motorola Atrix mobile phone, stated "The world's most powerful smartphone".
Issue
Two complainants, who believed the Samsung Galaxy S II i9100 had a more powerful processor, challenged whether the claim was misleading.
Response
Motorola Mobility Ltd (Motorola) said the ATRIX featured a Dual Core (2 x 1 Ghz) processor that provided a computer-like speed of operation and capability, 1GB of RAM that supported a high level of multi-tasking and crunching of graphical data, and a webtop solution and surrounding accessory ecosystem. They said, when the phone was docked into the unique HD dock or the standalone LapdockTM, it powered a full desktop browser, whilst providing support for cloud-based computing and full virtual Windows desktop via Citrix account. They said, although not promoted in the ad, the product’s battery was 20% more powerful than all known worldwide competitors, and could learn to read fingertips, providing more security and protection. They believed the combination of these technical features made the ATRIX the world's most powerful smartphone. They said, although the Samsung Galaxy S II i9100 had a slightly faster processor, it did not operate the unique computer-like accessory ecosystem that the ATRIX did. They said the ad did not claim the ATRIX’s processor was the fastest, but rather focused on the combined features of the performance and capability of the product.
Clearcast said it was Motorola's view that "the world's most powerful smartphone" was not based solely on RAM and processor speed, but rather a unique combination of features. They said these included the Dual Core processor, 1GB RAM, webtop and ecosystem, FLASH 10 PLAYER, qHD display, a 20% more powerful smartphone battery than all known current competitors on a world scale and a biometric reader.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted Motorola said, in the context of the ad, the word “powerful” was used to refer to the combination of technical features of the ATRIX. We noted they said when the phone was docked into the unique HD dock or the standalone LapdockTM it powered a full desktop browser, whilst providing support for cloud-based computing and full virtual Windows desktop. However, while we acknowledged the ad showed the phone being used with other associated accessories, we considered viewers would understand the claim "The world's most powerful smartphone", along with a close-up of the phone, to mean the phone, in isolation, was the most powerful smartphone.
We noted Motorola and Clearcast said the ATRIX featured a processor that provided a computer-like speed, 1GB of RAM, crunching of graphical data, a webtop solution, surrounding accessory ecosystem and a biometric reader. We considered that, although these elements described the performance and capability of the product, they did not necessarily make the product powerful. We also noted they said the phone had a more powerful battery than all known worldwide competitors. However, we considered most viewers would understand the claim "The world's most powerful smartphone", in context to a smartphone, to mean that the product had, among other features, a faster processor than any other smartphone. Because the Samsung Galaxy S II i9100 had a faster processor than the ATRIX, we considered the claim "The world's most powerful smartphone" had not been substantiated by comparative evidence and concluded that it was misleading.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration) and 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Comparisons).
Action
The claim "The world's most powerful smartphone" must not appear again.
