Ad description
Two TV ads and a radio ad, for an insurance price comparison website. The radio ad was heard on 18 February 2011. The TV ads, which were viewed between November 2010 and March 2011, showed animated characters singing and dancing in a large group:
a. The voice-over in the first TV ad stated “Confused.com, 18 million strong and growing”. Text on screen stated “18 Million Strong. Love Confused.com”.
b. Text on screen in the second TV ad stated “18 million strong and growing”, then “20 million strong and growing”. Further text stated “Love Confused.com”.
c. The radio ad stated “Confused.com about rising car insurance costs? Car insurance bills have gone up by an estimated 37 per cent but almost everyone could save by using Confused.com. Confused.com, 20 million strong and growing ...”.
Issue
1. Moneysupermarket.com and members of the public challenged whether ad (a) misleadingly implied 18 million people had bought products via Confused.com.
2. Other members of the public challenged whether ad (a) misleadingly implied Confused.com had 18 million current customers.
Moneysupermarket.com also challenged whether:
3. ad (a) misleadingly implied 18 million people had positively endorsed Confused.com; and
4. the claim “18 million strong and growing” in ad (a) was misleading and could be substantiated, because they believed Confused.com’s market share had recently decreased.
5. Other members of the public challenged whether ad (b) misleadingly implied Confused.com had 20 million customers.
6. One listener challenged whether ad (c) misleadingly implied 20 million people had bought car insurance via Confused.com.
Response
1., 2. & 5. Confused.com said their website was a price comparison service, which provided quotations to customers but did not sell any products as such. A customer was defined as someone who had registered an account and processed a quotation using the service. They said ad (a) did not say that 18 million people had bought products using Confused.com but the claim referred to the fact that the number of unique customers since the company had started trading exceeded 18 million. One customer who requested quotations related to, for example, three different insurance sectors would be counted only once. They said that was a conservative measure because it excluded customers who had asked to close their account. They said the number counted and approved by compliance staff up until 9 September 2010 was 18,791,077. That number was submitted to Clearcast along with qualifying criteria the following month and had been approved. They said the number had since reached over 20 million. They submitted copies of their customer records.
Clearcast said they had seen sufficient evidence to support the claims and were satisfied that the relevant number of customers had used the site to complete a quotation. They were also satisfied that the figure related to unique customers. They said the ads did not suggest 18, or subsequently 20, million people had bought products using Confused.com. They believed most consumers were aware that Confused.com was a comparison site.
3. Confused.com said the ad did not make reference to their customers endorsing the site but provided a statement of fact related to the number of customers as one sentence, followed by a second sentence that represented a farewell to the audience. They said, in any case, a recent satisfaction survey had shown that over 96 per cent of 3,206 respondents said they would recommend Confused.com to a friend. Based on their customer count at the time, that feedback indicated that over 19 million customers would be prepared to endorse the site.
Clearcast said the banners that included the text “18 Million Strong. Love Confused.com” showed two separate sentences with a clear full stop between them. They said they had been concerned to ensure the two statements should not be read as one. They said the ad was comic and light hearted, with a rousing popular music track. Clearcast said “18 Million Strong” reflected the number of customers who had used the site to obtain quotes from a variety of different insurers and did not suggest 18 million people endorsed it.
4. Confused.com said, according to survey measures by an independent organisation, they had grown their market share in motor insurance, which was their core market, each month since August 2010. In addition to a growth in market share, they had also enjoyed an increase in the number of customers to over 20 million by mid-December 2010. They said that number had been re-calculated to ensure the “18 million strong” continued to be factually correct.
Clearcast said they interpreted the claim to mean that the number of users of the site was growing. They said they considered the evidence submitted to them by Confused.com supported the claim.
6. Confused.com said they did not believe ad (c) misleadingly implied 20 million people had bought car insurance via Confused.com.
The RACC said the claim was based on the number of individual quotations provided, which they considered to be reasonable because it accurately reflected the nature of Confused.com’s business. They said they believed most consumers also generally understood the nature of the service offered by Confused.com.
Assessment
1., 2. & 5. Upheld
The ASA noted the claims in ads (a) and (b) were intended to refer to the number of consumers who had used the site to obtain at least one comparative quotation since it had started. We also noted however the ads did not make that clear. We acknowledged many consumers were likely to be aware of the nature of the site but noted that in addition to obtaining comparative quotations, insurance policies could be arranged via Confused.com. In the absence of qualification to explain the basis of the claims, we considered the meaning was ambiguous, and that they could therefore be interpreted in a number of ways, but that consumers were likely to understand that 18, and subsequently 20, million people had used the site to at least obtain a comparison. We considered the ads could also be interpreted as suggesting that 18, and subsequently 20, million people had used the site to arrange an insurance policy, as well as that the site currently had that number of customers. We noted, however, that was not the case.
Nevertheless, we noted the customer records Confused.com submitted took the form of large spreadsheets that included surnames, dates of birth, postcodes and customer record numbers. We also noted, however, the evidence did not include anything that demonstrated those people had used the site to obtain a quotation or to arrange an insurance policy. In addition, when the data in the spreadsheets was examined, we noted that there appeared to be some duplication of names that were associated with the same dates of birth and postcodes. When the customer records were grouped by surname and date of birth only there was much greater duplication, which in both instances meant the number of unique records was significantly under 18 million. We therefore concluded that the ads were misleading.
On these points, ads (a) and (b) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualifications).
3. Not upheld
We noted the text “18 Million Strong. Love Confused.com” in ad (a) was presented on screen as two sentences; the second was intended to be a farewell to viewers, to be read separately from the main claim. We noted the sentences were one below the other and were also separated by a full stop. We considered the text “Love Confused.com” was likely to be interpreted as a separate statement to the text “18 Million Strong”, rather than as suggesting 18 million people had positively endorsed the site. On this point, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rule 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
4. Upheld
We noted Confused.com said their market share for motor insurance, and the number of customers more generally, was growing. We also noted, however, ad (a) did not make clear the basis of the claim. In the absence of qualification to explain the basis of the claim, we considered the meaning was ambiguous, and that it could therefore be interpreted in a number of ways. We noted, however, the ad made no reference to motor insurance and therefore considered the claim was unlikely to be interpreted as relating specifically to Confused.com’s market share in relation to motor insurance. We considered consumers were instead likely to understand the claim to mean that the number of customers who had used the site to at least obtain a comparison was growing. We considered the ad could also be interpreted as suggesting the number of people who had used the site to arrange an insurance policy was growing. We noted, however, the customer records did not demonstrate that those people had used the site to obtain a quotation or to arrange an insurance policy and therefore it also could not be said to show that the number of people who had done so was growing. We concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualifications).
6. Not upheld
We noted ad (c) did not specifically state that 20 million people had bought car insurance via Confused.com. We noted the claim “Confused.com, 20 million strong and growing ...” was made after statements related specifically to car insurance. We considered, however, consumers were likely to understand the nature of comparison websites was generally to compare quotations across a number of sectors. We considered the claim was likely to be understood as a separate statement to those related to car insurance and as being related to the service offered by Confused.com more generally, rather than as suggesting 20 million people had bought car insurance using the site. We therefore concluded the ad was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated ad (c) under BCAP Code rule 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not be broadcast again in their current form. We told Confused.com to ensure future claims were clearly qualified. We also told them to ensure they held robust substantiation before making claims in future.
