Ad description

Two TV ads for NJOY electric cigarettes:

a. The first ad featured a montage of scenes, which documented the friendship between two men and was set to a soundtrack. The friends were shown in various situations helping each other out. In the first scene, one friend was seen waiting for the other in his car and giving him a lift from a sports event. In another scene, the friends were seen carrying a sofa up a staircase. Further scenes included one friend trying to help the other during an altercation in a bar and giving a best man's speech at the other's wedding. The soundtrack contained lyrics stating "Hey brother, there's an endless road to rediscover. For you, there's nothing in this world I wouldn't do." A voiceover stated "For everything friends do for each other. Return the favour. Give a friend an NJOY King electronic cigarette. Made to satisfy". On-screen text stated "Contains nicotine. 18+ to purchase". In a final scene, the friends were having dinner in a restaurant with their partners and one friend was seen giving the other the product. An end frame featured the NJOY branding with a strapline stating "Made to satisfy".

b. The second ad featured the same scenes, soundtrack and on-screen text as ad (a) However, the voiceover stated "For everything friends do for each other. Return the favour. Friends don't let friends smoke. Give them an NJOY King electronic cigarette. Made to satisfy".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied that smoking the product was healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Response

NJOY Innovations Ltd (NJOY) said they worked closely with Clearcast to ensure the ads did not breach the BCAP Code. In relation to ad (a), NJOY said there was no reference to smoking in the ad, nor was there a comparison made between smoking the product and smoking tobacco cigarettes. NJOY explained that there was no reference to the health benefits or concerns relating to either product. They said the ad centred on the help provided by friends and the phrase "made to satisfy". NJOY did not believe the concepts of satisfaction and health were comparable. They therefore did not think the claim "made to satisfy" was a scientific or health claim but rather a feel good line and in the context of friends and adventure it was clear this was not a health claim.

NJOY believed the ads complied with the BCAP Code, in relation to non-tobacco products. They said that the ads were clearly targeted at an adult audience and the friends featured were adults carrying out adult tasks such as carrying a sofa, giving a best man speech and driving. NJOY said the ad did not include design, imagery, logo style or anything that might be associated in the audience's mind with a tobacco product.

NJOY explained that the key difference between ad (a) and ad (b) was that ad (b) contained the phrase "friends don't let friends smoke". NJOY said the ads did not promote smoking or the use of tobacco products and the phrase "friends don't let friends smoke" was seeking to urge friends not to allow their friends to smoke. NJOY said they did not believe the ads could be regarded as containing health claims or any claim that the product was healthier than tobacco cigarettes.

Clearcast did not believe either ad made any health claims. They said the ads presented the product as an alternative to smoking and they believed that this was acceptable under the BCAP Code and in line with previous published ASA adjudications. Clearcast believed that the statement "for everything friends do for each other, return the favour. Give a friend an NJOY King electronic cigarette. Made to satisfy" presented the product as an alternative to smoking tobacco only. Clearcast said they believed ad (b) also made no health claims in the audio, visuals or text on screen. Clearcast took the view that the statement "for everything friends do for each other. Return the favour. Friends don't let friends smoke. Give them an NJOY King electronic cigarette. Made to satisfy" presented the smoking of tobacco in a negative light and presented the product as an alternative only.

Clearcast said there were many reasons why a consumer might want to use the product rather than smoke tobacco cigarettes and why a friend might make that suggestion. They explained that it could relate to the comparable cost of the product with tobacco cigarettes, the ability to legally use the product inside some venues and public spaces, or it could be the lack of smoke smell and residue that the product would leave on a smoker's breath and clothes. Clearcast believed that both ads presented the product as an alternative only and did not imply that the product was a safer or a healthier alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted that neither the audio, visuals nor on-screen text in the ads contained any express health claims relating to the product. Furthermore there were no express claims made stating that smoking the product was healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes. Whilst the ad implied that the product was favourable to smoking tobacco cigarettes, we considered that there may be a number of reasons why a friend might suggest the product as an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes. We considered that the ad suggested the product as an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes and did not imply that smoking the product was healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes. We therefore did not consider we needed to see evidence that smoking the product was healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes and we concluded the ads were 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.  (Misleading advertising),  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) and  11.2 11.2 If they are necessary for the assessment of claims, broadcasters must, before the advertisement is broadcast, obtain generally accepted scientific evidence and independent expert advice.  (Medicines, medical devices, treatments and health) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

BCAP Code

11.2     3.1     3.9    


More on