Advantage Marketing Corporation Ltd t/a Forever Active 7 Stadium Way Cradock Road Luton Bedfordshire LU4 0JF Number of complaints: 1

Date: 16 July 2008 Media: Television Sector: Motoring

Ad
A TV ad, for a Quingo five-wheel mobility scooter, showed different people operating mobility scooters.  The voice-over said "Once upon a time, most people were just happy for their mobility scooters to get them from A to B, often having to put up with a less than comfortable ride ... With the launch of the new five-wheel Quingo, the mobility scooter has come of age.  Not only does the Quingo's unique five wheeled configuration give you vastly increased manoeuvrability ... compared to a four-wheel scooter, the Quingo's adjustable seating and steering provide optimum comfort."  The ad showed a side profile of an older man seated on his scooter.  On-screen text stated "Discovery Mk III 4 Wheels."  Time-lapse imagery showed the seat, tiller and footrests of the five-wheel Quingo in different positions.  Further on-screen text stated "Legroom comparison to Discovery Mk III".  The voice-over continued "The forward footrests enable the driver's weight to be distributed more evenly providing up to 80% more legroom ... five wheels are better than four, are better than three".

Issue
One viewer challenged whether the claim "... compared to a four-wheel scooter, the Quingo's adjustable seating and steering provide optimum comfort" was misleading because he believed four-wheel mobility scooters were adjustable in the same way as the advertised five-wheel mobility scooter.

BCAP TV Advertising Code:

5.2.1;5.4.6;5.1

Response
Forever Active (FA) said the comparative claim "... compared to a four-wheel scooter, the Quingo's adjustable seating and steering provide optimum comfort" related to a comparison of the five-wheel Quingo with the four wheel model shown on screen, the Discovery Mk III, a mobility scooter previously marketed and distributed by FA, and was not a comparison with mobility scooters generally available on the market.  They said they had followed advice from Clearcast to make the comparison with that model to avoid any suggestion of denigration.

They believed the claim was accurate; they pointed to the Quingo's adjustable seating and steering column and the patented Quintell technology of their footrests which provided extra legroom, adding to the driver's comfort by increasing stability and safety.  FA submitted calculations showing that the Quingo offered 34% more foot area and 80% more legroom than the four-wheel scooter shown in the ad, the Discovery Mk III.  They believed those factors made a difference to the driver's comfort, particularly to those drivers who experienced joint problems.  

FA added that, in any case, if viewers were to interpret the claim as a comparison with all four-wheel scooters generally available on the market, then the claim was still accurate.  They said, contrary to the complainant's view, if an attempt was made to improve comfort on a four-wheel scooter by sliding the seat backwards, which not all four-wheel scooters could do, foot room was only marginally improved.  Furthermore, in order for the driver to steer from that position, the handlebars also had to be adjusted which could only be done by lowering the tiller closer to the user's lap, thereby reducing comfort.  They submitted the results of a survey, which had been conducted after the ad was broadcast, of customers who had purchased a Quingo.  Respondents who had previously owned a mobility vehicle were asked to rate the Quingo on different characteristics, including comfort, compared to their previous mobility vehicle.  Three-quarters of respondents had previously owned a four-wheel scooter and the majority of them rated the Quingo as more comfortable than their previous mobility vehicle.  FA therefore considered that the results supported the claim that the Quingo was more comfortable than four-wheel scooters generally available on the market.    

FA submitted a copy of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) "dynamic stability" test certificate for the Quingo and pointed out that the ad had been broadcast continuously on national television since June 2007 and only one complaint had been received.

Clearcast said the ad was cleared in April 2007 and they were keen to ensure that it gave an accurate demonstration of how the five-wheel scooter worked so that it did not denigrate any other type of scooter.  They explained that FA were trying to convey the improvements that had been incorporated in the five-wheel scooter to overcome problems experienced with previous models; for example, the stability problems of the three-wheel scooter, the restrictive seating and steering of the four-wheel model and the absence of footrests.

Clearcast noted the five-wheel scooter used smaller front wheels than the four-wheel version, which allowed the incorporation of footrests on either side of the tiller.  They understood that this allowed for a fuller range of seating positions and improved posture.  Clearcast pointed out that on-screen text indicated that the ad demonstrated how the four- and five-wheel scooters differed by showing the Discovery Mk III, a four-wheel mobility scooter previously marketed and distributed by FA, which had similar height and seating adjustments.  They nevertheless understood that other four-wheel scooters did not offer the range of adjustments offered by the Quingo and considered that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the complainants concern that the claim "... compared to a four-wheel scooter, the Quingo's adjustable seating and steering provide optimum comfort" was misleading because some four -wheel scooters also featured adjustable seats and steering columns and could therefore arguably offer the same level of comfort as the five-wheel Quingo; he said his four-wheel mobility scooter had adjustable seating and an adjustable tiller.  

We noted FAs comments that the comparative claim related to a comparison of the five-wheel Quingo with the four-wheel model shown on screen, the Discovery Mk III, and was not a comparison with mobility scooters generally available on the market.  We noted on-screen text stated "Discovery Mk III 4 Wheels" which appeared at the same time the claim was made and that further on-screen text "Legroom comparison to Discovery Mk III" appeared at the same time the voice-over stated "The forward footrests enable the driver's weight to be distributed more evenly providing up to 80% more legroom ..." We therefore considered that viewers were likely to infer that a comparison was being made between the four-wheel scooter pictured in the ad and the five-wheel Quingo and not with four-wheel scooters generally.      

We noted the ad sought to highlight how the five-wheel scooter overcame problems typical of earlier three- and four-wheel models.  We understood that the Quingo offered 80% more legroom than the Discovery Mk III and a more varied range of seating positions because of its adjustable seating and steering and footrests.  We considered that these improvements were likely to result in increased comfort and concluded that the claim had been substantiated.

We noted FA's comments that if viewers were to interpret the claim as a comparison between four-wheel scooters generally then it was still accurate as they believed the results of the survey supported this claim.  However, we did not consider that the evidence was sufficiently robust to substantiate that particular claim.  Nevertheless, we did not consider that viewers would interpret the ad in that way.

We investigated the ad under CAP Broadcast (TV) Advertising Standards Code rule 5.1 (Misleading Advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

Action
No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)