Background
Summary of Council decision:
Seven issues were investigated all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A leaflet and the websites www.londoncomedyclubtickets.co.uk and www.comedyclubbookings.co.uk:
a. The leaflet, featured text which stated "AS SEEN ON TV All our shows are with award-winning professional acts The London Comedy Club has received more than 100 recommendations, awards and top rated reviews from the media. We are the critics [sic] choice". A testimonial stated "'This is the most upmarket venue for comedy in the country'. BNO". Further text stated "Over 50% Off Tickets Bought Inside the Venue".
b.The website www.londoncomedyclubtickets.co.uk, featured text on the home page that stated "The Comedy Club has put on more shows in a single venue than any other comedy club over the last twenty years ... Loved by critics' [sic] and comics' [sic] alike. With over 100 recommendations from all forms of media, and with even more 4 and five star reviews. What's not to love?". The right-hand side of the page included photographs of a number of comedians, including Jimmy Carr, Adam Bloom and Omid Djalili. Further text on the "SHOW DETAILS" page stated "We only select the finest acts for our shows. From acts that have been in BAFTA nominated TV shows to established top headline acts". Further text beneath the sub-heading "Acts" stated "Each show stars a selection of the best acts from the circuit. Acts that have played our shows include Jimmy Carr, Ross Noble, Adam Bloom, Dan Antopolski, Patrick Monahan, Frank Skinner, Russell Hound, Tim Vine, Lee Mack, Harry Hill, and the list goes on ... and on".
c. The website www.comedyclubbookings.co.uk, featured text that stated "This is the most upmarket venue for comedy in the country, from the moment the concierge opens the double doors onto the marble reception area you know that your night is going to be super special! Comfy seats too! BNO Comedy Club Review".
Issue
The Top Secret Comedy Club challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "All our shows are with award-winning professional acts";
2. "With over 100 recommendations from all forms of the media, and with even more 4 star and 5 star reviews";
3. "Over 50% Off Tickets Bought Inside the Venue";
4. "The Comedy Club has put on more shows in a single venue than any other comedy club over the last twenty years"; and
5. "We only select the finest acts for our shows. From acts that have been in BAFTA nominated TV shows to established headline acts".
The Top Secret Comedy Club also challenged whether:
6. the testimonial "'This is the most upmarket venue for comedy in the country.' BNO" was genuine; and
7. the images of Jimmy Carr, Adam Bloom and Omid Djalili misleadingly implied that those comedians performed at the club, because they understood they did not.
Response
1. londoncomedyclubtickets.co.uk & comedyclubbookings.co.uk (the advertiser) said the club employed comedians from a pool of at least five comedians. They said all five comedians had won awards for their comedy work and three could accurately be described as professional comedians. They provided a list of the television appearances made by each comedian and a schedule of the performers appearing in the shows.
2. The advertiser said the claim had been removed from the ad. However, they did not provide any evidence to support the claim.
3. The advertiser provided screenshots of searches conducted on a third-party merchant's website that showed the price of a ticket. However, those searches post-dated the ad. They also provided receipts relating to shows that had been purchased at the venue. However, those receipts were illegible. We requested legible copies of those receipts, but were not provided with them.
4. The advertiser said they knew of no other single venue comedy club that consistently ran seven shows or more every week. They therefore believed the claim had been substantiated.
5. The advertiser believed the club's regular performers could be accurately described as established headline acts. They also believed the reference to acts that had been in BAFTA nominated shows was not misleading, because one of the regular performers performed a significant role in a BAFTA nominated show "TooMuchTV" in 1999/2000.
6. The advertiser provided a screenshot of the www.bignightout.info website taken from a digital archive website. The screenshot included the claim that was the subject of the complaint. However, it did not identify the venue to which the comments related.
7. The advertiser said Jimmy Carr performed at the club between 1996/97 and 2003/04 on over 50 occasions. They said Adam Bloom performed at the club at least twice between 2002 and 2003 and Omid Djalili had performed at the venue on a number of occasions. However, they did not provide any documentary evidence to confirm those appearances.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that text above the claim stated "AS SEEN ON TV". The ad also included numerous positive reviews, such as "Definitely the funniest show in London" and "The funniest show". In that context, we considered consumers would understand the claim "All our shows are with award-winning professional acts" to mean that all shows included well-known performers who had won awards for their comedic performance.
We noted the list of TV shows in which the regular performers had appeared, related to less well-known productions and performers. Furthermore, we had not been provided with documentary evidence to demonstrate that the performers had won awards for their comedic performance.
Because we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that all shows included well-known performers who had won awards for their comedic performance, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated. On that basis, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
2. Upheld
Because we had seen no documentary evidence to support the claim, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
3. Upheld
The ad made clear that tickets were also available for purchase online via a third-party merchant. In that context, we considered consumers would understand the claim to mean that tickets purchased at the venue were more than 50% cheaper than tickets purchased online via the third-party merchant. We noted the screenshots from the third-party merchant's website post-dated the ad and did not relate to consumers' booking receipts; rather they related to searches for tickets. The receipts, which we understood related to tickets that had been purchased at the venue, were illegible. We therefore considered we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that tickets purchased at the venue were more than 50% cheaper than tickets purchased online.
On that basis, we considered that the claim had not been substantiated and therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
4. Upheld
We considered that in order to substantiate the claim we would need to see comparative evidence which demonstrated that the advertiser had run more shows in a single venue than any other comedy club in the 20 years prior to the date the ad was viewed by the complainant. Because we had seen no documentary evidence to demonstrate that, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
5. Upheld
We noted the ad featured text that stated "Each show stars a selection of the best acts from the circuit" and identified a number of well-known comedy performers who had appeared in the advertiser's shows. In that context, we considered consumers would understand the claim "We only select the finest acts for our shows. From acts that have been in BAFTA nominated TV shows to established headline acts" to mean that well-known performers or acts, who had taken prominent roles in well-known BAFTA nominated TV shows, appeared in every show.
We considered the list of regular performers related to less well-known performers and that the BAFTA nominated show, in which one of the regular performers had appeared, was a less well-known show that was aired between 1999 and 2000.
Because we had seen no documentary evidence to demonstrate that well-known comedians or those who had taken a prominent role in well-known BAFTA nominated shows, had appeared in every show, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
6. Upheld
We considered the ads presented the testimonial in a manner that implied the comments related to the venue at which the shows appeared. We acknowledged that the screenshot, taken from a digital archive website, included the claim that was the subject of the complaint. However, the screenshot did not identify the venue to which the comments related. Because we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the testimonial was genuine, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point, ads (a) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. 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 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. (Endorsements and Testimonials).
7. Upheld
We noted the ad stated "we will continue to bring you the best acts" and featured a number of positive reviews from recognised publications and organisations. In that context, we considered consumers were likely to interpret the ad to mean that Jimmy Carr, Adam Bloom and Omid Djalili performed at the club recently. Because we had seen no evidence to demonstrate that, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told the advertiser to ensure all claims were capable of robust substantiation in future. We also told them to ensure all testimonials were genuine.
