Advertising Standards Authority
The Top Navigation and Site Search section:
A
A
A
A
Home
Accessibility
Cymraeg
Site Map
Contact Us
Search our web site
Search
Banner Feature:
Skip Navigation Links
Main Navigation
About ASA
News and events
Adjudications
Old Broadcast Rulings
Focus On
Advertising Codes
Research
Annual Report
Links
Keep Me Informed
How to Complain
Contact Us
Career Opportunities
Search
Privacy Policy
Accessibility
Visit the CAP web site.
ASA Adjudications
DSG Retail Ltd t/a PC World
Maylands Avenue
Hemel Hemstead
Hertfordshire
HP2 7TG
Number of complaints:
13
Date:
7 February 2007
Media:
Television
Sector:
Computers and telecommunications
Agency:
M & C Saatchi
Ad
A TV ad for PC World showed a young couple in a PC World store. The assistant described the Packard Bell imedia 1569 PC to them as "pretty much future-proof". The young woman from the couple said "Future-proof?" and the assistant responded "Yes, it'll last longer than say ..."; the young woman threw a glance over to her boyfriend while looking at the assistant questioningly; the assistant said "Correct" then laughed.
Issue
The viewers thought the phrase "future-proof" was misleading, especially to those who had no knowledge of computers, because it was impossible for a PC to be future-proof when computer hardware and software applications were constantly changing, developing and improving.
BCAP TV Advertising Code
:
5.1
;
5.2.2
Response
PC World argued that the claim was not misleading because the Packard Bell imedia 1569 PC had a high specification and was designed to be Windows Vista compatible. They believed the main development in PC software in the immediate future would be the launch of the Windows Vista package in early 2007. They asserted that only PCs with 1 GB of RAM, which the Packard Bell imedia 1569 PC had, would be fully compatible with Windows Vista. They also pointed out that the PC had a 200 GB hard drive, six USB ports and the Intel Core 2 Duo processor; an advanced processor that dealt with multitasking. They argued that the PC was unlikely to need improving or upgrading in the foreseeable future and believed the average user would probably not need to improve or upgrade it during its lifespan.
The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) believed PC World had substantiated the claim by confirming that the PC in question was ready to accept Windows Vista and had the Intel Core 2 Duo processor, which meant that it was unlikely to need upgrading in the foreseeable future. They believed consumers often bought new computers to handle new Windows upgrades and the claim was therefore acceptable. They also pointed out that the claim "future-proof" was qualified with the words "pretty much".
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the Packard Bell imedia 1569 PC was fully compatible with the new Windows Vista package that was due to be released in January 2007. We also noted PC World's assertion that the PC in question was unlikely to need upgrading in the foreseeable future. We noted developments and improvements in computer hardware and software were constantly occurring and many PCs might require updated systems to run some new programs in the future. We considered, however, that consumers were likely to be aware of how quickly computer hardware and software changed and were likely to understand the claim "future-proof" to mean that the PC would not need replacing for the foreseeable future. We considered that the average viewer was likely to require the PC to run the most popular and fundamental software available at the time of purchase and would understand that a new PC would be able to run those programs for several years without the need for replacement but would probably need upgrading at some point in the future. We concluded that, because the advertised PC would be able to run Windows Vista, which was likely to be one of the major software changes in the foreseeable future, the claim "future-proof" was unlikely to mislead.
We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)
back
|
top