Ad description
A TV ad in the style of a news report, for a breakdown recovery service, showed a response vehicle coming to the aid of a stricken motorist. A voice-over stated, "A Green Flag van has been spotted seconds away".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that Green Flag sent their own, branded recovery vehicles to help motorists who had broken down.
Response
Green Flag Ltd (Green Flag) explained that their business model differed from that of some of their competitors in being structured around partnerships with five key service providers who, in turn, used a network of smaller providers, all of which worked to strict Green Flag values and service standards. They said those five providers, as well as the wider network beneath them, had built up a fleet of Green Flag branded vehicles of the type shown in the ad, and those were only ever used to handle Green Flag claims.
They stated that the top five service providers, who attended the majority of Green Flag claims, had committed to attending in a liveried vehicle if at all possible. They said the only exceptions to that would be where they were attending road traffic accidents or where there was a possibility they might need to tow the vehicle to another location rather than being able to fix it at the roadside. They provided information relating to the number of Green Flag branded vehicles in operation and the percentage of claims which they attended. They stated that both those figures were on the increase.
Green Flag also stated that, in order to ensure they operated as a trusted and reliable brand under their business model, they undertook rigorous checks on potential new service providers before they were appointed to work for Green Flag and that after that point their performance, including customer feedback, was monitored on a regular basis by a team of network managers. They said that process allowed them to be sure to provide the level of service expected of them as a trusted brand.
They were confident that the ad gave a truthful representation of the service a customer was likely to receive from Green Flag. They said the ad did not claim that all incidents would be attended by Green Flag vans, but rather showed an existing Green Flag livery that would be called out to customers in the type of situation shown and, therefore, gave an indication of the experience they could expect to receive.
Clearcast said they believed that the complainant was incorrect in understanding that Green Flag would not send their own branded recovery vehicles to a call-out. They stated that Green Flag's service providers did have a fleet of branded vans and that the figures provided to the ASA showed it was highly likely that one of those vans would respond to a motorist's call-out. They did not consider that the ad was misleading.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA understood that Green Flag worked in partnership with a number of service providers, who attended call-outs on their behalf. We noted that the largest five service providers, as well as the network of smaller companies working underneath them, had built up a fleet of Green Flag branded vehicles which were only used for Green Flag call-outs.
We acknowledged that call-outs to Green Flag customers would not be attended by an employee of Green Flag in a Green Flag branded van directly owned by that company, because they operated on a different business model. However, we noted that the ad showed only a brief, dimly-lit scene of a response vehicle driving towards a stranded motorist whilst a voice-over stated, "A Green Flag van has been spotted seconds away". Although it was clear that the response van was operating on behalf of Green Flag, it was hard to discern that it was a liveried vehicle. We considered that the ad gave the impression that call-outs would be attended by a response vehicle operating on behalf of Green Flag, but did not go so far as to imply that the vehicle would be directly owned by Green Flag or that it would in every case carry the Green Flag branding. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
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) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
