Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, one was Upheld and one Not Upheld.
Ad description
A national press ad, for Bright Heating radiators, stated "Bright Heating provides a heating system that heats your home, keeps costs down and gives you total control in each room, right around the clock ... Some of the fantastic benefits ... Exceptionally low running costs ... Join the hundreds of customers enjoying 24 hour controllable warmth at just 6.3p* per hour for a typical living room on a cold winter's day! This compares to around 16p+ per hour for Economy 7 with 2kW/hr 8 hour back up ...". Small print stated "*Tests based on BS EN 60675:1995 (household electric direct acting room heaters, methods for measuring performance) as conducted by BSRIA. +Over 24 hours - 3.4W/hr £7 rad. At 6p per kW/hr E7 tariff for 16 hours heat and 2kW/hr at 15p per kW/hr tariff back up heating for 8 hours".
Issue
1. Two complainants, who believed that the claims "keep costs down", "Exceptionally low running costs" and "24 hour controllable warmth at just 6.3p* per hour for a typical living room on a cold winter's day" could not be substantiated, challenged whether the comparison with Economy 7 was misleading.
2. One complainant challenged whether the claimed saving was misleading, because they believed that any savings would be offset by the cost of the radiator.
Response
1. Bright Networks Ltd, trading as Bright Heating (BH), said everybody's home was different, as was their lifestyle and heating usage. They said for their radiators to maintain an ambient room temperature of 21°C for a period of one hour they used electricity for between 22% and 28% of the hour and that, at a daily rate of 15p per kWh the cost of running a 2 kWh heater would be 6.3p per hour. The also provided a calculation which they said demonstrated that the cost of operating a 3.4 kWh night storage heater was 0.1595p per hour. They submitted a report which detailed three tests on an electric radiator which they believed supported this.
2. They said there was a period of time before the investment was recouped and that there was no indication of the cost of the radiator in the ad.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claims "keep costs down", "Exceptionally low running costs" and "24 hour controllable warmth at just 6.3p* per hour for a typical living room on a cold winter's day! This compares to around 16p+ per hour for Economy 7 with 2kW/hr 8 hour back up" implied that using the advertised product was cheaper, when compared with other available heating systems, including those using a 2 kWh radiator on the Economy 7 tariff.
The report related to three tests on a 2 kWh heater, the objective of which was to determine the stability of temperature control and power consumption in three different test conditions. However, only one product was tested and in the controlled environment of a test chamber. Furthermore, the report did not include any data that related to the running costs of the advertised product, either when compared to the cost of other heating systems, including Economy 7, or in relation to the amount that consumers would pay in order to achieve 24-hour controllable warmth. We concluded that, because the claims had not been substantiated, the comparison with Economy 7 was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications 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), and 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
2. Not upheld
We considered that the claim "Join the hundreds of customers enjoying 24 hour controllable warmth at just 6.3p* per hour for a typical living room on a cold winter's day! This compares to around 16p+ per hour for Economy 7 with 2kW/hr 8 hour back up" compared the cost of running the advertised product with a 2 kW/h radiator on the Economy 7 tariff. Whilst we had not received evidence to support the claim that running the advertised product would cost 6.3p per hour, and that this was 9.7p cheaper than Economy 7, we considered that it was clear that the stated amount was per hour. In that context we did not consider that readers would expect the claimed saving of 9.7p to take into account the costs of purchasing the product. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading on those grounds.
On this point 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 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told the advertiser to hold robust, relevant evidence to substantiate their claims in future.
