Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad and an ad on www.vax.co.uk for the Vax Air Cordless vacuum cleaner:
a. A voice-over in the TV ad stated, "We made one change that changes everything. A full size vacuum cleaner without the cord. This is the Air Cordless from Vax. Powerful, manoeuvrable, lightweight." The ad showed a woman using the vacuum cleaner. Text alongside it stated "Full size - Powerful* - Manoeuvrable - Lightweight". Text at the bottom of the screen stated "*Compared to GFK leading handstick vacuums. December 2013".
b. The product page on www.vax.co.uk showed photographs of the vacuum cleaner. Under the heading "Features" text stated "Full size capacity - 1.05 litre dust container - Slim and lightweight, but with a full size capacity dust container" and "Cordless - Powerful. Full size. Now cordless - We removed the cord but kept everything else".
Issue
Dyson challenged whether the claims:
1. "We made one change that changes everything - a full size vacuum cleaner without the cord" in ad (a); and
2. "Powerful. Full size. Now cordless - We removed the cord but kept everything else" in ad (b) were misleading, because they suggested that the vacuum cleaner was as powerful as corded models.
Response
1. & 2. Vax Ltd supplied a comparative list of features of the Vax Air Cordless against mains powered Vax models, which they believed showed that the Air Cordless performed the same cleaning functions and had the same look and feel as corded models. They supplied photographs of a selection of competitors' mains powered models which they believed showed similarity of design and form between them and the Vax Air Cordless.
Vax said they had not intended the ads to make a comparison between the power of corded and cordless machines and believed there was nothing in the claims in ads (a) or (b) that did so. They believed consumers would understand and would expect there to be a difference in performance characteristics between the two. Vax believed each ad when viewed as a whole suggested that the Vax Air Cordless was the same size; had the same physical features and was objectively comparable in look, appearance and use to a full-size mains powered machine. They cited the on-screen text linked to the "Powerful" claim in ad (a) which stated "Compared to GFK leading handstick vacuums," which they believed distinguished any performance aspect of the claim from mains powered machines. They supplied the results of comparative suction power and dust removal tests.
Vax noted the omission of a similar qualifying statement to the claim in ad (a) from ad (b), which they had subsequently rectified.
Regarding ad (a), Clearcast believed it was clearly stated that the "power" claim was based on data from an internal test against the top handstick cleaners in a GFK survey. They said that, during the approval process, Vax had told them that the correct comparison for a cordless vacuum cleaner would be with the nearest equivalent battery-powered products and that they did not state that their model had "full power" or "corded power". They believed those terms suggested a comparison with mains powered models but that they believed the qualification made clear that they were not doing that.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA considered the claim in ad (a), and especially the wording "We made one change that changes everything. A full size vacuum cleaner without the cord" and the claim in ad (b), and especially the wording "Cordless - Powerful. Full size. Now cordless - We removed the cord but kept everything else" suggested that a comparison with corded models was being made; that the only difference would be the absence of the cord; and that the use and performance of the machines in all other respects, including suction power and dust pick up, would be comparable with corded models.
We noted that the "Powerful" claim in ad (a) was linked to qualifying text which stated that the comparison was against "GFK leading handstick vacuums" (and that similar qualifying text was intended in ad (b)). We considered the qualifying text on its own explained that the "powerful" comparison was with leading, handstick vacuum cleaners, and that the term "handstick" was likely to be understood to mean rechargeable rather than mains powered. However, in conjunction with the remainder of the ad, which suggested a comparison with corded models, we considered the comparison was ambiguous.
The evidence that Vax and Clearcast had supplied comprised comparisons with corded and non-corded models. The corded models were four from Vax's range and did not compare suction power or dust pick up. Suction power and dust pick up comparisons did feature in other comparisons included in the evidence, but those comparisons were with other non-corded models, not corded models.
Because we considered the claims in both ads suggested that the performance of the Vax Air Cordless in terms of suction power and dust pick up was comparable with that of corded models, but Vax and Clearcast had not supplied evidence to substantiate that, we concluded that the claims were misleading and in breach of the Codes.
Ad (a) breached 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), 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration) and 3.33 3.33 Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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), 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) and 3.33 3.33 Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
Ad (a) must not be broadcast again and ad (b) must not appear again in its current form. We told Vax Ltd to ensure their ads did not suggest that their cordless vacuum cleaners were comparable in terms of suction power and dust pick up with corded models unless they held evidence for that.
