Ad description
A website, www.stopsecret.org, for Unipart Automotive, a company that offered brake pads for sale, featured text that stated "STOP SECRET OFFICIAL BRAKE TEST RESULTS THE OTHER BRANDS WOULDN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ... ". The page featured an embedded booklet that enabled consumers to click through each page. The first page stated "1 HIGH SPEED TESTS: Recorded stopping performance at high speed approaching 115mph. With Unipart pads fitted, the vehicle stopped up to a massive 32 metres before the competition! * That could be the difference between stopping safely and hitting something." The second page stated "2 PERFORMANCE TESTS: Recorded the brake stopping performance at 30, 50, 62 mph, with a set pedal effort. With Unipart pads fitted, the vehicle stopped up to 10 metres sooner than competitors when bedded ... ". The third page stated "3 FADE & HOT STOP TESTS: Recorded the brake pad reaction to repeated use (slowing the vehicle) and high temperature. Unipart recorded best deceleration after the test, stopping up to 11.5 metres sooner than competitors." The embedded video repeated those results and showed Unipart with the best results overall. A link labelled "DOWNLOAD THE DOSSIER" clicked through to a further document that featured text that stated "Stop Secret - Independent Aftermath Official Brake Test Results". Text in the body of the ad stated "Brake Pad Brands tested: Apec Bosch Delphi Drivetec Pagid Unipart". Further text below the heading "What is MFDD?" stated "Mean Fully Developed Deceleration (MFDD) is used to record and compare braking performance ... Important: Brake Pads which achieve the highest average MFDD recording have decelerated at a faster steady state, and will result in the shortest stopping distance". The ad contained details about the structure and results of brake tests. The ad showed Unipart with the best results overall.
Issue
TMD Friction Services GmbH t/a TMD Friction UK Ltd challenged whether the comparison in the ads was misleading, because they believed the test that underpinned the comparison was unreliable.
Response
Unipart Automotive Ltd said the ads provided a factual comparison of the performance of each of the market leading brands. They said each brand was awarded points on a six point scoring system depending on its position in each test. They said the tables faithfully represented the relative position of each brand in the respective tests. They said Unipart achieved the highest cumulative score and was therefore “best on test”.
Unipart Automotive said the test that underpinned the comparison was designed and independently implemented by the leading company specialising in brake testing for the automotive industry. They said the tests took place at the Vehicle Certification Agency’s (VCA) Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) test track with a human driver and on-board measuring equipment. They pointed out that the same vehicle and on board computerised equipment was used throughout the tests to ensure consistency. They considered the variations in pedal force applied during the Performance Tests were minimal and within reasonable tolerances and pointed out that the VCA considered them to be acceptable for comparison purposes.
Unipart Automotive said the tests relating to braking performance recorded the mean fully developed deceleration (MFDD), which was the average deceleration in metres per second squared between 80% and 10% of the vehicle’s test speed. They said that MFDD was an industry-wide recognised test for effective braking performance and was interchangeable with stopping distance for brake testing purposes and that it was a measure that formed part of the framework governing regulatory approval of braking performance. They said it was the most reliable test of effective braking performance because it discounted uncontrollable variables at the beginning and end of the braking cycle. They believed the ads made clear that MFDD had been used as the basis for the comparison and were therefore not likely to mislead.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the website featured text that stated “With Unipart pads fitted, the vehicle stopped up to a massive 32 metres before the competition! * That could be the difference between stopping safely and hitting something”, “With Unipart pads fitted, the vehicle stopped up to 10 metres sooner than competitors when bedded”, and “Unipart recorded best deceleration after the test, stopping up to 11.5 metres sooner than competitors”. The embedded video reiterated those results. The ad did not provide details of the stopping distances of the brake pads tested. The document that could be downloaded from the website provided a description of MFDD and featured text that stated “Important: Brake Pads which achieve the highest average MFDD recording have decelerated at a faster steady state, and will result in the shortest stopping distance”. The ad then quoted comparative figures for braking performance which were based on MFDD. Those comparisons were represented graphically.
We considered consumers would understand the presentation of the ad to mean that the comparisons for braking performance that were based on MFDD related to the total stopping distances for each brake pad used in the tests.
We noted Unipart Automotive’s belief that MFDD was an appropriate measure of braking performance, but were concerned that that measurement did not relate to the overall stopping distance, as the ad implied; rather it related to 70% of the braking process only. We were therefore concerned that the comparisons for braking performance that were based on MFDD did not relate to the total stopping distances for the brake pads used in the comparisons.
The ad indicated that the ‘Performance Tests’ recorded the results of the brake stopping performance with a set pedal effort. We considered consumers would understand that to mean that each test was carried out with an identical pedal effort. Whilst the tests aimed to apply a pedal force of 40 dekaNewtons to the ‘Performance Tests’, we were concerned that the application of brake force was not identical for each test.
For those reasons, we concluded that the comparison in the ads was misleading.
The ad breached 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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Unipart Automotive Ltd to ensure comparisons were not likely to mislead in future.
