Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and two were Not upheld.
Ad description
A national press insert, a leaflet and a magazine ad for Good Energy Ltd:
a. The national press insert, seen on 22 July 2017, was headed "Choose Good Energy. Home-grown power on your doorstep". Text underneath stated "Around 60% of the UK's energy comes from places like Russia and the Middle East. This means some of it has to travel about 2,500 miles to get here. As well as generating our own electricity through wind and solar, we also buy renewable energy from local independent suppliers ... So on average, our customers are never more than four miles away from one or our generators".
b. The leaflet, seen on 14 October 2017, contained the same claims.
c. The magazine ad, seen on 27 November 2017, was headed "I've chosen energy from around the corner not across the ocean". Text stated "100% renewable electricity and green gas - Did you know that on average your energy travels 2,500 miles to reach you? We don't think this is good for the environment, so on average, our customers are never more than four miles away from one of our generators ... make the switch to reduce your carbon footprint by up to 50%".
Issue
The ASA received four complaints making one or more of the following points:
1. One complainant challenged whether the claim "Around 60% of the UK's energy comes from places like Russia and the Middle East" in ad (a) and
2. Three complainants challenged whether the claim "... on average, our customers are never more than four miles away from one or our generators" in ads (a), (b) and (c) respectively were misleading and could be substantiated.
3. One complainant, who believed ad (c) suggested that the energy supplied to Good Energy's customers had travelled a shorter distance than the energy supplied by other companies, challenged whether that impression was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Good Energy Ltd said their ads had been presented to eight focus groups of Good Energy and non-Good Energy customers. Feedback was obtained to identify any issues that might arise, but no feedback was received that raised the concerns identified by the complainants. They believed, therefore, that the complainants' concerns were not typical.
1. Good Energy believed the wording that immediately followed the claim, "This means some of it has to travel about 2,500 miles to get here" was sufficient to explain to readers that only some of the imported energy came from as far away as Russia and the Middle East and that energy was imported from a variety of places, some of which were closer. They believed the wording "places like ..." suggested a wider interpretation than specific, named countries. They supplied information that they said was produced using data published by the UK Government's National Statistics Department showing the percentage of overall energy imported into the UK and the distance it had travelled. They pointed out that it showed that 10.7% of the overall energy imported into the UK came from Norway. They stated their willingness to make the claim more specific in future so that it referred to "the fuel used to generate electricity in the UK".
2. Good Energy said they had calculated the distance between each of their customers and each customer's closest generator and had then taken an average to produce the resulted figure of 3.86 miles. They supplied anonymised data which showed the distances between their customers and their nearest generators.
3. Good Energy said they believed most consumers would understand that electricity was supplied via the National Grid, which took electricity from a range of different sources including coal, gas, nuclear and renewables.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered readers were likely to interpret the claim to mean that 60% of the electricity and gas used in the UK came from Russia, the Middle East and other countries of a similar distance from the UK. We acknowledged Good Energy's point that the wording "places like" allowed for interpretations such as that some of the energy being imported came from locations closer to the UK than Russia or the Middle East. We noted that the information they provided, which they said was produced using data published by the UK Government's National Statistics Department, was for 2015. Of the total amount of energy imported into the UK, Good Energy's figures stated that the highest percentage – 18% – came from Norway, followed by 16% from Kazakhstan, 16% from Canada and 12% from Russia. Good Energy did not supply the UK Government figures that they relied on when devising their ad, but they did supply the most recent UK Government data relating to fuel consumption and said that they intended to amend the claim so that it referred to "the fuel used to generate electricity in the UK". The most recent data went as far as the third quarter in 2017. We considered it could not, therefore, be considered substantiation for a claim that appeared on 22 July 2017 and noted that it did not, in any case, refer to the amount or percentage of energy that had been imported into the UK or where it had come from. We considered therefore that Good Energy had not supplied adequate evidence for the claim and concluded that the ad 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) 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).
2. Not upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the claim to mean that Good Energy's current customers were, on average, no more than four miles away from one of their generators. We noted that the generators Good Energy had taken into account when calculating the average distance included hydro (run of river) sites, onshore wind turbines, bio gas generators, bio mass (wood) generators and solar panels. We noted that the claim was presented as an average, and that therefore some customers would be considerably further than four miles from their nearest generator, and that it was also based on a relatively high number of small generator sites, which we considered was not surprising for an energy company that took renewable energy from local independent suppliers. We also considered that, for a claim that was worded in the present tense, Good Energy would need to keep the data under regular review to ensure it continued to be in line with their customer profile. Nevertheless, we considered there was a reasonable basis for Good Energy's claim and that it was therefore not misleading.
On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) 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 them in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted that the statement "I've chosen energy from around the corner not across the ocean" appeared in conjunction with the claims elsewhere in the ad which stated "100% renewable electricity and green gas", "Change now to cleaner, greener, local energy" and "... our customers are never more than four miles away from one of our generators". We considered many consumers were likely to be aware that most power, whether it was from renewable or from non-renewable sources, was sent to and then distributed by the National Grid, but that some consumers might have the mistaken impression that Good Energy customers would be provided with energy direct from Good Energy (which would not therefore have to travel as far to reach them). However, even for those customers who had that impression, because it was generally not possible to have that kind of renewable energy supplied direct from power source to customer and because purchasing energy from a renewable energy supplier added to the total renewable energy supplied through the National Grid, which we considered would be the key consideration for consumers interested in switching to renewable energy, the true situation was unlikely to affect their decision to take energy from Good Energy. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.
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 3.7 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
The ads must not appear again in the forms complained of. We told Good Energy Ltd to ensure they held adequate evidence in future for claims about the proportion of energy used in the UK that came from abroad.
No further action necessary in relation to points 2 and 3.
