Thompson & Morgan (Young Plants) Ltd Longue Hougue Depot Longue Hougue Lane St. Sampson Guernsey GY2 4JN Number of complaints: 1

Date: 7 May 2008 Media: Brochure Sector: Leisure

Ad
A catalogue, for Thompson & Morgan, stated "Highlights for 2008.  These much praised new varieties use exotic blooms to brighten our summers ... ".  A number of different fuchsias were pictured with explanatory text below.  Beneath two of the pictures, text stated "NEW! 'Mood Indigo'" and "NEW! 'Tom West'".

Issue
The complainant challenged the description of the Tom West and Mood Indigo varieties of fuchsia as "new", because he understood that they were old varieties.

The CAP Code:

7.1

Response
Thompson & Morgan (Young Plants) (T&M) disagreed with the complainant that the brochure was misleading.  They said the claim 'new' was intended to convey that the varieties of fuchsia were new to their catalogue, not newly introduced varieties of plant.  They believed most readers would interpret the ad in the way they had intended.  They added that five out of the seven fuchsias pictured were new varieties as well as being new to their catalogue.  They explained that they were one of a few horticultural companies serving the consumer market that carried out their own breeding, a process which could take up to ten years.  T&M argued that, in any case, when they introduced a new variety of plant to their catalogue, it was described as 'new' in the same way as those older categories that were new to their catalogue were described.  They pointed out that, even where a fuchsia had been specifically bred by them, the variety would not meet the complainant's definition of 'new', because the variety would have been in existence for several years as the crop was sewn and harvested in order to build up sufficient stocks for sale through their catalogues.  

T&M pointed out that many of their competitors in the mail order plant business also used the description 'new' in the sense of the variety being a 'new' introduction to the catalogue.  They pointed out that there had been only one complaint and argued that most readers would not be misled by the claim.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted T&M's comments and their point that most recipients of the catalogue would understand that the claim 'new' meant that the variety of fuchsia was new to their catalogue.  We nevertheless noted text stated "These much praised new varieties ...".  We considered that claim was likely to give readers the impression that the varieties labelled 'new' were newly introduced species of fuchsia.  

We noted T&M did not distinguish between varieties of plants that were newly introduced and those that were new to their catalogue.  We considered that there was a clear distinction between the two that needed to be made clear so that consumers were not misled.

We noted T&M's argument that even newly introduced plants would have been in existence for some time and were therefore not 'new'.  We considered that it was not misleading to describe such plants as 'new' as we considered that most consumers would be aware that the breeding and crop production process may take some time.

We further noted T&M's argument that other companies also used the description 'new' to refer to varieties of plant that were new to their catalogues.  We considered that, provided ads made clear the context of the description 'new' and distinguished between those plants that were newly introduced varieties and those that were new to the catalogue, then to describe them as 'new' would not be misleading.  We considered, however, that T&M's ad did not make the distinction clear and we therefore concluded that the claim could mislead some readers.

The catalogue breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action
We told T&M to make clear in future catalogues whether the varieties of fuchsia were new to their catalogue or newly introduced varieties of fuchsia.  We advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for help with the amendment.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)