Ad description
An ad for running shoes in a Sweaty Betty catalogue stated "ASICS has been developing sports shoes for over 60 years. Through a dedicated scientific approach, it has created some of the most comfortable and performance enhancing shoes on the market. Gender specific footwear further improves the performance and fit of ASICS running footwear for women".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "Through a dedicated scientific approach, it has created some of the most ... performance enhancing shoes on the market" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Lady of Leisure Ltd t/a SweatyBetty said the ad was prepared in collaboration with ASICS UK Ltd (ASICS). ASICS submitted a joint response on behalf of ASICS and SweatyBetty. They said the purpose of the claim was to communicate that they had created some of the most performance enhancing shoes, not that they were the most performance enhancing shoes in comparison to their competitors. They therefore provided substantiation for the claim on this basis. They said they intended the words “performance” and “enhancing” in the ad to be understood by their common dictionary meaning and that they referred to the performance of the athlete or runner, and not to the performance of the shoe. They said the term “performance shoes” was common in the sports industry, and provided a number of examples of its use.
They said they used a dedicated scientific approach to the development of all its shoes in their Research Institute of Sports Science which was opened in 1990 in Japan. They said that scientists, athletes and coaches worked there together and that it had resulted in technological innovations in sports shoes and apparel. They said the Institute included a large number of sports testing facilities and that the main activities they were involved in were the analysis of the movements of the human body and testing materials. Their goal was to enable professional and recreational athletes to perform better. They said that the basis for all their products was the observation and analysis of physical movements, and listed some of the tests they used. They said they worked with top athletes and that this also informed their product development. They provided some examples of the kinds of comparative testing and research they carried out at the institute. They provided video clips that discussed their research into gender specific footwear. They provided a list of various awards their shoes had been given by a popular running magazine over the period 2004–2012. They also provided a number of third-party reviews of their shoes from running specialist stores and websites, which they said underlined that ASICS shoes were some of the most comfortable and performance enhancing on the market. They said they had carried out comparative testing and evaluated the characteristics of some well-known brands of running shoes. They provided one such test as an example and a report on the ‘technical roadmap’. They said the claim related to the shoe market and made no implied claim in relation to a comparison with wearing no shoes or ‘barefoot running’.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered the claim would be understood by the average consumer to mean that ASICS used a scientific approach when developing their shoes and that the reference to "performance enhancing" would be seen either as puffery or as a relatively mild claim that some of their shoes could enhance performance. We considered that, in the context of the ad, consumers would understand "performance" to refer to a variety of factors such as running style, time achieved, flexibility, support and general feel. Also they would understand that differences in anatomy and running style meant that different shoes would suit different people in terms of performance benefit. The complainant believed the claim implied there would be a significant performance benefit in choosing their shoes over others in the market or running barefoot. We did not consider the claim implied their shoes were being compared to barefoot running because it specifically referred to "on the market" and was made in the context of an ad for running shoes. The evidence supplied showed that a number of ASICS' shoes had been judged as the best shoes out of a selection of running shoes by a leading running magazine and we also noted that some of the reviews specifically mentioned the performance of the shoes. It also demonstrated that ASICS used a scientific approach to their shoe development. We therefore considered that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under 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. (Other comparisons) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
