ASA Adjudication on Lil-lets UK Ltd
Lil-lets UK Ltd
2nd Floor, Radcliffe House
Blenheim Court
Solihull
West Midlands
B91 2AA
Date:
17 October 2012
Media:
Internet (on own site), Magazine
Sector:
Health and beauty
Number of complaints:
1
Agency:
Big Communications
Complaint Ref:
A11-178046
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad
a. A magazine promotion for Lil-Lets stated "Lil-Lets also knows that it's not just about super-chic packaging. Available in five absorbencies, the Silk Comfort compact applicator tampon features widthways expansion technology and a silky-smooth pink applicator for the ultimate in protection and comfort". It also stated "For girls on the go, Lil-Lets FreshLOCK Ultra towels are the perfect solution. Twice as absorbent as the leading brand, FreshLOCK Ultra towels feature the same clever design touches as Silk Comfort, with each towel individually packaged in a soft, grey whisper wrapper".
b. A website for Lil-Lets, www.lil-lets.co.uk stated "If you prefer sanitary towels to tampons, or choose to use both, we genuinely don't think you'll find towels better than ours. Our towels are also proven to be softer and twice as absorbent as the leading brand".
c. A magazine ad for Lil-Lets stated "Whether it's tampons that expand gently widthways to provide better protection against leaks, or our ultra soft absorbent towels that prevent odours developing without masking them with harsh perfumes, Lil-Lets has a complete range of sanitary protection products full of little design ideas that make a big difference. We can't promise you a 'happy period', but we're confident you'll feel a little more reassured knowing that Lil-Lets provide the best protection possible".
Issue
Procter and Gamble UK challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "The ultimate in protection" in ad (a) in relation to the advertiser's Silk Comfort tampons.
2. "The best protection possible" in ad (c) in relation to the advertiser's Silk Comfort tampons.
3. "The best protection possible" in ad (c) in relation to the advertiser's FreshLOCK Ultra towels.
4. "Twice as absorbent as the leading brand" in ads (a) and (b) in relation to the advertiser's FreshLOCK Ultra towels.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. Lil-lets UK Ltd (Lil-Lets) believed the words "ultimate" and "protection" were both capable of multiple interpretations and meanings, and that it was important to consider the context in which they appeared. They said they were a member of a voluntary industry association, along with Procter and Gamble UK (P&G), and that part of their code, which they provided, stated there were five absorbency bands for tampons which were assessed by a standard test. They said they used the word "ultimate" to describe their Silk Comfort tampons to illustrate that they were the only UK tampon range that encompassed all five absorbencies. They said ad (a) focused on the range of absorbency and comfort offered by the product, and that they believed this justified the claim "ultimate protection". They did not believe consumers would be misled by the claim, or that it exaggerated the capability or performance of the product.
2. & 3. Lil-Lets said the purpose of ad (c) was to raise awareness and promote the Lil-Lets brand as a whole, and was not designed to promote any one particular product. They did not believe the ad or the claim "The best protection possible" implied that their Silk Comfort tampons or their FreshLOCK Ultra towels were objectively superior to other tampons and towels on the market in terms of leakage protection, or otherwise. They said the ad did not refer to any competitors' products. They also said the text referred to "a full range of products" and "whether it's our tampons ... or our ultra soft" and that the image of various products did not emphasise a particular product. They said that, in this context, the claim "The best protection possible" was not misleading, and did not exaggerate the capability or performance of the products. They said the claim was aimed at promoting the strength of the Lil-Lets product range in terms of all-round protection.
4. Lil-Lets believed they were able to substantiate the claim "twice as absorbent as the leading brand". They said there was no industry standard for the testing of the absorptive capacity of sanitary towels, and that testing methodology was therefore determined in house. They said they had used the same method to measure absorptive capacity for over 30 years, and provided a copy of their test methodology. They also provided a copy of their in house tests on which they said the claim was based. They said these showed that when their FreshLOCK Ultra towels were compared with P&G's Always Ultra towels, their product was consistently found to be more than twice as absorbent in total capacity, and sometimes three times as absorbent. They therefore believed the claim to be "twice as absorbent" was accurate and had been substantiated. They had also referred their in house tests to an independent third party testing facility. They said they asked the testing facility to repeat their tests. They provided these results, which they said showed their original test results were accurate. They also asked the testing facility to apply their own test methodology to confirm the results were accurate, and not merely the result of the testing method. They provided these results, which they said corroborated their original test results.
Lil-Lets said that consumer surveys and feedback, which they provided to us, showed that "absorption" was ranked higher than, or as high as, any other product feature, and it was therefore a very important factor in consumer experience of the product. They also provided consumer surveys, and highlighted that over 40% of respondents said that "all of the towel" was used at the point their flow was heaviest. They said consumers would not always be able to predict when this was, and that total absorbency was therefore a key product feature. They also said their consumer tests showed the respondents preferred two out of the three variants of the FreshLOCK towels, compared to P&G's Always Ultra towels. Lil-Lets did not believe the claim implied the product could be worn for longer, or could accommodate a heavier flow, and did not believe that consumers would perceive absorbency as equivalent to length of use.
Assessment
THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 11 JULY 2012. THE WORDING ON POINT FOUR HAS CHANGED BUT THE DECISION TO UPHOLD REMAINS.
1. Upheld
P&G believed the claim "the ultimate in protection" implied the product was superior to other tampons on the market, particularly in terms of leakage protection. Lil-Lets did not agree with this interpretation of the claim, and said they used the word "ultimate" to communicate that they were the only UK tampon range that encompassed all five absorbencies.
The ASA considered the claim "ultimate in protection" was likely to be seen by consumers as an objective comparative claim that Lil-Lets' tampons were superior to all others on the market and would expect it to be backed by robust evidence. The CAP Code stated that superiority claims must be supported by evidence unless they were obvious puffery, and that objective superiority claims must make clear the aspect of the product that was claimed to be superior.
We considered that the word "protection" in this context was open to a variety of interpretations, including, but not confined to, leakage protection. We noted that another possible interpretation referred to the range of absorbencies on offer, and that Lil-Lets had provided evidence they were the only product range to offer tampons in all five absorbencies. However, we did not consider the ad made it clear that this was the basis for the claim. Lil-Lets did not provide comparative evidence in relation to other possible interpretations of the claim. Because the ad did not make the basis of the claim clear, and Lil-Lets had not provided robust evidence to support the superiority claim, we concluded the claim was misleading.
On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. & 3. Upheld
P&G believed the claim "the best protection possible" implied the advertiser's Silk Comfort tampons and FreshLOCK Ultra towels were superior to other tampons and sanitary towels on the market, particularly in terms of leakage protection. Lil-Lets did not agree with this interpretation of the claim, and said the purpose of the claim was to promote the strength of their product range in terms of all-round protection.
We considered the claim "the best protection possible" was likely to be seen by consumers as an objective comparative claim that Lil-Lets' products were superior to all others on the market and would expect it to be backed by robust evidence. The ad referred to a "happy period", which we understood was a reference to the strapline used to advertise P&G's Always sanitary products. We noted the CAP Code stated that superiority claims must be supported by evidence unless they were obvious puffery, and that objective superiority claims must make clear the aspect of the product that was claimed to be superior.
We considered that the word "protection" in this context was open to a variety of interpretations, including, but not confined to, leakage protection. Lil-Lets had not provided comparative evidence to support the claim. Because the ad did not make the basis of the claim clear, and Lil-Lets had not provided robust evidence to support the superiority claim, we concluded the claim was misleading.
On this point ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
4. Upheld
We noted Lil-Lets had provided evidence, including independent testing, which they believed substantiated the claim that their FreshLOCK Ultra towels were "twice as absorbent as the leading brand". We understood there was no industry standard test for the absorbency of sanitary towels, but that Lil-Lets had based the claim on tests to establish the "total absorptive capacity" of the towels. We understood that both the in-house and independent tests involved submerging the towel in water, allowing it to drain, pressing it with a weight (the in-house test only) and then weighing how much water the towel had absorbed. We noted the results of these tests indicated that FreshLOCK Ultra towels were more than twice as absorbent as P&G's Always Ultra towels. We also noted P&G said they had conducted their own tests to establish comparative overall pad capacity, which they said demonstrated the overall pad capacity of FreshLOCK Ultra towels was not twice that of Always Ultra towels. We also noted that they did not believe the overall pad capacity of a towel could be correlated with consumer experience of the product, and that they believed other tests were more useful in establishing likely consumer experience of the product.
We noted the claim ‘twice as absorbent as the leading brand’ was explicit and explicitly comparative, and considered that consumers would interpret such a strong claim as implying there could be a meaningful difference between consumer experience of the absorptive capacity of the two products. In that respect we considered that the claim could be interpreted by consumers in a number of ways, such as implying they would be able to wear the towel for longer, or that it would be able to absorb a heavier flow. We understood Lil-Lets were basing the claim on laboratory tests for the total absorptive capacity of the products by submerging them in water. However, we did not consider that Lil-Lets had demonstrated the tests were of clear relevance to consumer experience of the absorptive capacity of the product. We noted that Lil-Lets had provided evidence that absorption was an important consideration for consumers, and acknowledged this was likely to be the case. We considered, however, that consumers would value other absorption related qualities like the ability to absorb fluid quickly at the ‘loading point’ of the towel and the ability to retain fluid the towel had absorbed, and not just the total absorptive capacity as measured by the tests. We also noted that Lil-Lets had provided the results of consumer-use surveys comparing Lil-Lets FreshLOCK Ultra Towels to Always Ultra towels. However, we noted that these did not refer specifically to absorbency. We also noted the consumers wore the two types of towel for a similar length of time on average. We therefore did not consider that those surveys had demonstrated that the laboratory tests they submitted correlated with a material difference in consumer experience of the absorptive capacity of the towels. We note the Code stated comparisons with identifiable competitors must relate to material and relevant features of those products. We considered the claim implied there could be a difference in consumer experience when using the products and, because Lil-Lets had not provided evidence this was the case, we concluded the claim was misleading.
On this point ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
Ads (a), (b) and (c) must not appear again in their current form.
