Ad description
The Bosun's Barbers Facebook page, seen in December 2016 and January 2017, contained text which stated "Est. 1969".
Issue
The complainant, who believed Bosun's Barbers was established in 2016 and that the parent company was incorporated in 2003, challenged whether the claim "Est. 1969" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Bosun's Barbers supplied summary pages from their yearly accounts from the years 1974 to 2015; their HMRC VAT Certificate dated 11 April 2017, which stated the effective date of registration as 1 April 1973; and other press and publicity information showing prices in pre-decimal currency, which they believed showed their business, originally in the name Antony & Patricia but now also in the name Bosun's Barbers, had been in existence since 1969. They said Bosun's Barbers was located on the first floor of the premises following a decision in 2016 to use vacant space to meet the increase in demand from male clients; Antony & Patricia remained located on the ground floor of that building. Bosun's Barbers, however, did not trade as a separate business from Antony & Patricia and there was a single telephone number, till and card payment processing machine for both parts of the business.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim as referring, in the context of a hairdressing business, to the level of experience and expertise that would be available in a business that had been established for that length of time, and might be inclined on that basis to choose Bosun's Barbers over one of their competitors. We noted that the documentation showed that the business name Antony & Patricia had been registered in November 1969 and that a combination of documentation, which included press articles and publicity material from the early years and, for subsequent years, extracts from yearly accounts, showed that the business had been trading in one form or another throughout that time.
We acknowledged that there had been a change in the trading name; that the parent company had been incorporated in 2003; and that the premises from which the business operated had been enlarged in 2016 so that the first floor could incorporate increased capacity for male clients under the Bosun's Barbers name. However, we considered those changes would be seen as an extension of a business that already existed and would not affect consumers' understanding of the claim. We considered that, given the length of time the claim referred to and the limited amount of documentation that such a business would have needed to hold during, and retain from, its early days at that time, Bosun's Barbers had supplied reasonable evidence to substantiate the claim and that it was unlikely to mislead.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
