Ad description

A regional press ad for Toomey Chevrolet Southend, featured the Chevrolet Spark and stated "FEATURES INCLUDE ... up to 68.9mpg" with the mpg figure appearing next to the image of a petrol pump. Footnote text stated "Official Government Environment Data. Fuel consumption figures mpg (litres/100km) and CO2 emissions (g/km). Chevrolet Spark 1.0: 42.8 (6.6), Extra Urban 67.3 (4.2), Combined 55.4 (5.1) CO2 emissions 119/km. Official EU-regulated test data are provided for comparison purposes and actual performance will depend on driving style, road conditions and other non-technical factors ...".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claim "up to 68.9mpg" was misleading, because he understood that the fuel consumption rate advertised was unlikely to be experienced by consumers.

Response

Toomey (Southend) Ltd, explained that incorrect figures for the fuel consumption of the vehicle had been published as a result of human error. The agency responsible for the error confirmed this.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that the means by which fuel efficiency figures for vehicles should be calculated was set out in European legislation, the Passenger Car (Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions Information) Regulations. In practice, this was a set of test-drive cycles conducted under controlled conditions that produced figures that showed the vehicle's efficiency in urban and extra-urban (faster moving) scenarios. These two figures were then averaged to give a third figure, known as the combined figure. We understood that it was a mandatory requirement for this information to be provided in ads.

The complete fuel consumption figures for the vehicle in this ad were stated in footnote text, which also explained that they represented official Government environment data, provided for comparison purposes. The footnote additionally stated that actual performance was dependant on driving style, road conditions and other non-technical factors.

While information in relation to fuel consumption was mandatory, we noted it had been the advertisers' intention to specifically highlight the extra-urban mileage figure over the complete set of test results in this case. We considered that consumers were likely to interpret, from the presentation of the data in this example, which included a MPG claim under the heading "FEATURES INCLUDE" against the image of a petrol pump, that the expected fuel consumption for the car for consumers was 'up to 68.9mpg', which, had the figure been accurate for the Chevrolet Spark 1.0 LS, would have represented the extra-urban mileage figure resulting from the vehicle efficiency testing under controlled conditions.

We understood that fuel consumption figures resulting from the standardised tests were to be used as a guide for comparative purposes only and that they may not be representative of real driving conditions. We considered, therefore, that MPG claims required clear qualification to clarify what they represented and to counter-balance any implication that the figures were indicative of real driving results. In this case, footnote text referred to actual performance being dependant on, for example, driving style and road conditions. While this implied factors such as differing driving styles or the use of the vehicle on differing types of surfaces or in differing levels of congestion, could affect the MPG the vehicle would achieve, it did not reflect the fact that the figures quoted, which resulted from the vehicle's controlled testing, might not ever be achieved by consumers. Notwithstanding that the incorrect figure was used in the body of the ad, we considered that, even had the correct figure been used, the footnote text used would not have adequately counter-balanced the message given in the ad's body text, which was that consumers could expect to achieve the specific MPG highlighted.

We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead, because it quoted a MPG figure which had not been demonstrated in the vehicle's test results and promoted a specific MPG figure as a feature of the vehicle without adequate qualification to make clear what it was that the figure represented and to explain that it might not be achievable in real driving conditions.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer 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 the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising),  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  and  3.10 3.10 Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
 (Qualification) and  3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.  (Exaggeration).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told the advertisers to ensure that future ads which featured MPG claims were appropriately qualified to make clear on what basis the figure was calculated and what it represented. Any qualification should specify that the test figures were to be used as a guide for comparative purposes only and may not reflect real driving results.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.10     3.11     3.3     3.9    


More on