Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Not upheld and one was Upheld.
Ad description
A regional press ad for advertising space in The Argus newspaper. Text in the ad stated "The Argus continues to GROW ... 48 Journalists ensuring The Argus remains YOUR VOICE ... 42,606*** Readers of The Argus newspaper every day ... The combined audience of The Argus and www.theargus.co.uk 174,343* which is growth of 24.6% year on year ...". Small print at the bottom of the ad stated "* Source: Average daily sale of The Argus plus average weekly unique users of theargus.co.uk (ABC July-Dec 2013) ... *** Source: JICREG Oct 2013".
Issue
1. Two complainants challenged whether the claim "48 Journalists" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that the number of journalists employed by the newspaper was lower than the figure quoted in the ad.
One of the complainants also challenged whether the claims:
2. "42,606*** Readers of The Argus newspaper every day"; and
3. "growth of 24.6% year on year"
were misleading and could be substantiated, because they believed that the figures had been exaggerated.
Response
1. Newsquest Sussex Ltd stated that they employed 48 multi-media journalists and provided a list of editorial staff for the period during which the ad appeared. The list included editorial, news desk, website, sports desk, features, photographic and sub-editing staff.
2. Newsquest Sussex said that the readership number of 42,606 was extracted from the research data published in October 2013 by the Joint Industry Committee for Regional Media Research (JICREG). They also provided a copy of the JICREG Minimum Audit Rules and Guidelines for calculating and reporting Newspaper Net Circulation Data. They said that this was a measurement that all audited UK newspaper titles used.
3. Newsquest Sussex believed that the ad clearly stated that the growth of 24.6% was based on the combined readership of The Argus newspaper and theargus.co.uk and pointed out that the sources of these were also detailed. They provided a set of data developed using the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) audited circulation figures and data that were sourced from the same traffic data reporting system. They stated that the growth figure of 24.6% was derived by combining circulation figures for print copies audited by the ABC for July to December 2013 and the average weekly unique browsers number for July to December 2013, and this combined figure was then compared to that of the same period in 2012.
Newsquest Sussex stated that the figure for average weekly unique browsers, on which the claim was based, was derived from the same set of log files submitted to the ABC for the audit period of July to December 2013. They also provided an ABC audit certificate for website traffic on theargus.co.uk for this period which verified the traffic data reporting system they used. They therefore believed the figure for the average weekly unique browsers had been subject to robust, industry recognised auditing process that was verified by the ABC and that the claim had been substantiated. Newsquest Sussex stated that the intention behind the claim was to draw attention to their increasing audience and that they had used figures which they genuinely thought to have supported this claim. They further stated that if there was an error, it was a genuine mistake and not an attempt to deliberately mislead their readers and potential advertisers.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged the complainants' concerns that ordinary readers of the newspaper would infer the claim 'journalists' to mean news reporters, features reporters and sport reporters. However, we understood that the definition of 'journalists' within the industry encompassed editors, sub-editors, photographers, designers, features writers and news and sport reporters. We noted that the ad was targeted at perspective advertisers who wished to place ads in the newspaper, rather than ordinary readers of the paper. We considered that prospective advertisers' interpretation of the word 'journalist' in the claim was likely to be similar to the industry definition.
Therefore we considered that Newsquest Sussex had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that there were 48 journalists at the Argus and concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point, the ad was investigated under CAP Code (On this point, the ad was investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration), but was not found to be in breach.
2. Not upheld
We understood that newspaper readership data released by JICREG was produced by applying the number of readers per newspaper copy at postcode levels to the circulation figures within the relevant postcode areas. We also understood that JICREG also provided readership data for different demographic groups for the postcode areas in which the given publication was circulated. These demographic groups included various age groups and genders.
We noted that the readership figure of 42,606 in the claim related to the total readership within the "Adult" demographic group from the JICREG data released in October 2013 for The Argus. We understood that this meant that The Argus had on average 42,606 adult readers each day of the audited period from April 2013 to October 2013. We considered that consumers, and prospective advertisers wishing to place ads in The Argus, would interpret 'readers' within the context of the ad to broadly mean adult readers.
We noted that the JICREG Minimum Audit Rules and Guidelines supplied by Newsquest Sussex applied to newspaper titles that had not been audited by the ABC. However, we understood that JICREG audit requirements stipulated that a newspaper publication that was in the ABC membership must supply net circulation figures audited by ABC for JICREG use, which in this instance we understood The Argus had complied with such a requirement. We also considered that the readership figure quoted in the ad was derived from an industry recognised readership modelling process. On this basis, we considered that Newsquest had provided sufficiently robust evidence to substantiate the claim and therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point, the ad was investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration), but was not found to be in breach.
3. Upheld
We noted that the ad stated that the growth figure was calculated by adding the average daily circulation of print copies to the average number of weekly unique browsers of The Argus website and implied that these figures were taken from the ABC audit for the period July to December 2013.
We understood that the average daily circulation for print copies between July and December 2013 used by Newsquest Sussex in the calculation of growth had been audited by the ABC, as evidenced by the ABC certificate for Cross Platform Circulation, which they provided.
We noted Newsquest Sussex's comments that the figure for the average weekly unique browsers of Argus.co.uk was derived from the same set of log files submitted to the ABC for their July to December 2013 audit and these data were sourced from the same system, the use of which was confirmed in the ABC certificate for the Argus website traffic. However, we noted that the ABC certificate for The Argus website traffic only accounted for the daily average number and monthly average number of unique browsers for the audit period of July to December 2013. We noted that the figure for average weekly unique browsers on which the claim was based had not been certified by the ABC for compliance with industry standards, despite the fact that this figure had been sourced from the same reporting system used by ABC to verify the website's average daily and average monthly unique browsers.
On this basis, we considered that we had not been provided with sufficiently robust evidence to substantiate the claim that there was 24.6% growth between July and December 2012 and the same period in 2013, given that part of the data used to calculate such growth had not been audited by the ABC or an independent robust and industry recognised auditor. We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.
On point 3, the ad was investigated 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) and was found to be in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Newsquest Sussex Ltd to ensure that claims relating to circulation figures in future ads must be based on circulation figures that have been audited by the ABC or other robust industry recognised auditors.
