Ad description
A banner ad, on a heating and plumbing website, for a boiler manufacturer, viewed on 6 June 2011. Text stated “Worcester Bosch Group Independent tests have shown that Worcester boilers are now the most reliable on the market. To find out more call 0844 XXX XXXX, or visit worcester-bosch.co.uk”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim “Independent tests have shown that Worcester boilers are now the most reliable on the market” was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Worcester stated they did not intend to use the ad in future. They provided the ASA with a copy of an article which appeared in the September 2010 edition of Which? magazine. They said that the article identified Worcester boilers as having achieved the top reliability score in the Which? tests. Both Worcester and Vaillant boilers scored 76% for reliability within the report. The Which? test results were based on the responses of 3,783 Which? Connect members who were asked to provide information about their boilers. Only boilers of up to six years old were to be included. The reliability score was based on the proportion of boilers that had been repaired, adjusted by age.
Worcester also provided the ASA with a British Gas report that had been produced in 2007. The report included short-term reliability reports which had been derived from breakdown visits to boilers between 1 March 2007 and 31 May 2007. That report excluded multiple visits. The report also included medium term reliability reports that had been derived from breakdown visits to boilers installed since appliance launch. That report also excluded multiple visits. The report commented on three models of boiler. However, it stated that there were insufficient installations of three different models of boiler to allow for those to be reported on.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim made in the ad to mean that recent independent tests had demonstrated that Worcester boilers were the most reliable on the market. However, we noted that the British Gas report had been produced in 2007 and commented only on three models of Worcester boiler. We were, therefore, concerned that the report did not review the whole market. As such, we considered the report was not sufficient to substantiate the claim that Worcester boilers were the most reliable on the market.
We noted that the reliability report which appeared in the Which? magazine was based on the experiences of Which? Connect members. However, we considered that consumers were likely to interpret reference to independent tests to mean that the reliability of Worcester boilers had been tested by reputable independent bodies. We subsequently considered that a report based upon customer experience was not sufficient to substantiate the claims made in the ad.
We were also concerned that the Which? report did not provide information on the reliability of all boilers on the market, but, rather, was restricted to boilers that Which? Connect members had reported on. Moreover, we noted that the Which? report only considered the reliability of boilers which had received more than 50 responses from Which? Connect members. We considered, therefore, that the report was not sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that Worcester boilers were the most reliable on the market. On that basis, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are 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) and 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Worcester to ensure that they held robust substantiation to support all claims in future.
