Background

Ad description

A TV ad for JML Direct, a home products retailer, seen on 4 May 2017, promoted their copper stone frying pan. A voice-over said, “JML’s ultimate frying pan. The tough, scratch resistant, super non-stick frying pan with a solid stainless steel base that will transform the way you cook … virtually nothing sticks … enjoy sizzling steaks, perfect pancakes, oil free eggs and more … Get copper stone pans from JML from only £19.99”, accompanied by illustrative examples showing screws being swirled around in the pan, a pancake being tipped from the pan leaving no solid residue and an egg fried without oil moving freely in the pan.

Issue

The ASA received three complaints.

1. One complainant, who believed the “from only” price of £19.99 referred to the pan shown in the ad, but later realised it applied to a much smaller sized pan, challenged whether the ad was misleading.

The second complainant challenged whether the claims and images relating to the product’s following properties were misleading and could be substantiated:

2. non-stick; and

3. scratch-resistant.

Response

1. John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct said that the ad featured different sized pans in the cooker hob shots and the visuals showing different sized food items being cooked also demonstrated differences in pan size. They said that they used the “from” price reference to indicate that the range started at £19.99 and they ensured that, when the “from £19.99” price came up at the end of the ad, the pan shown at that moment was the 20-cm £19.99 version. They said that could clearly be seen on the packaging on the end frame, which stated “20cm frying pan”. Because the text was not small and in upper case, it was prominent and easy to read. They added that it was held on screen for almost 10 seconds which meant that viewers also had enough time to read and understand the text.

Clearcast said that while they noted that the ad did not specifically list the variety of pan sizes there were two brief shots of different sized pans. They added that the use of “pans” in the plural in the voice-over, as well as the price being stated as “from” rather than “at” £19.99, and the shot of the pan in a packaging with size 20 cm shown, was sufficient for an average viewer to understand that the pans came in different sizes and that they could get the 20-cm pan for £19.99. They acknowledged that the pace of the ad may not have allowed viewers to clearly see the size of each pan each time they were featured, but they nevertheless thought that the overall combination of all these elements would be sufficient to inform viewers that there was a range of sizes available and therefore the price stated was for the smallest pan in the range.

2. JML Direct said the instructions for the pan clearly stated that the pan should be seasoned prior to use. Seasoning was standard for all pans of that type and was key to the pan performing as indicated. If it was not seasoned the pan would not achieve its full non-stick levels. This involved wiping the pan with water after purchase, putting some oil into it and basically cooking the oil until it was hot and then letting it cool down. They also said that in their independent test results using a pancake, no solid residue was left in the pan. Internal testing undertaken by JML Direct provided in a video to the ASA showed a fried egg sliding around the pan with no oil being used. They said that they stated “virtually nothing sticks” in case there were circumstances where for reasons outside of their control, food would stick to the pan.

Clearcast confirmed that they had requested and seen substantiation in support of the ‘non-stick’ claim. The independent test data showed samples of food usually prone to burning, such as eggs, milk and cheese, and also included a melting plastic bag. They stated that the test results were satisfactory, in their view, to accept the non-stick claim.

3. JML Direct said that they were careful to say that the pan was ‘scratch-resistant’ and not ‘scratch-proof’ as the pans were resistant to scratches up to a point, but beyond that they may mark as would any other scratch-resistant pan. They said that they would have used “scratch-proof” if they could guarantee that nothing would scratch the pan.

The exact warning on the pan stated, “most metal utensils, except knives and forks, can be used with caution. To help preserve and avoid scratching the non-stick surface, we recommend using plastic, silicone or nylon cooking utensils”. Scratch-resistant meant, in the context of their pans, that when cooking normally, metal utensils could be used without scratching it and a metal spatula used for brief periods, even if it came into contact with the pan’s surface, would not mark it. They said they advised not to use knives and forks as they are naturally pointed and the force of a point on a coated surface was far greater than was generated by the screw demo. They also said that sharp cutlery was not commonly used in frying pans and would scratch any surface that was not scratch-proof. As a consequence, having screws in the pan was not as abrasive as using a knife and fork. The key difference was that knives and forks would be applied with pressure and that difference was crucial as it may exceed the product’s resistance level.

A statement in the instructions, to avoid stacking the pan, was included to indicate that the pan was not scratch-proof and could potentially, though unlikely, mark if it was in constant contact with a heavy metal surface over a long period of time. JML Direct said that stacking metal pans went beyond swirling screws around in a pan in terms of the force and levels of abrasion it would generate as a result of the surfaces being in constant contact with each other. This was different from standard use where the interaction between the pan and, for example, a metal spatula would be brief and light so would not exceed scratch resistance limits. The scratch resistance of the pan was not exceeded with the screws being slowly moved around in the pan. They said that as with any product of that type, if it was not treated with care or used as instructed it may scratch.

They also said that the pan’s scratch resistance had been confirmed by independent testing using a ‘Pencil Hardness’ test, which had been used by the kitchenware industry for many years to determine the scratch hardness for the exterior coating of a pan. The test used special pencils with different degrees of hardness to scratch the coating which then determined its hardness. From the test results no scratch was visible, which showed that the product was scratch-resistant. JML Direct said they also conducted an abrasion test which was more strenuous than the visuals shown in the ad of the pan filled with screws. The test report showed that the score of “2” was achieved by the pan, which indicated it was resistant to abrasion.

They also said that the shot of the screws in the pan was not to be interpreted as indicating an extremely high level of scratch resistance, because if they had been trying to indicate this, the visuals would have been considerably stronger. The intention of the shot was not to suggest that no precautions were needed with the product, but to suggest the product had a high level of scratch resistance as was shown by the test data.

JML Direct also submitted to the ASA video evidence testing the effect on the pan of stacking it, using a metal spatula, as compared to a knife and fork, and one of screws being moved around the pan. They said that these videos demonstrated that screws in the pan would not damage it, but stacking and using sharp cutlery would, hence the warning included on the packaging.

Clearcast confirmed they had received the pencil hardness test data and the results showed that the pan had no scratch marks visible. They did not consider that the visuals could be taken to mean that a viewer would not need to take any care when using the product, but that using pressure or scraping the pan with a sharp end of a fork or knife would result in damage and therefore caution was advised in the instructions for use. They therefore considered the claims in the ad were acceptable.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the use of “pans” plural, indicated that there was more than one size of pan available in the range.

We also accepted that at times the pans featured appeared larger or smaller because of the foodstuffs being cooked in them. However, because of the speed of the shots and the fact that throughout the ad, with the exception of one brief scene, only one pan was ever shown at a time, it was difficult to assess the sizes of the pans in relation to each other. The pan featured most frequently and prominently in the ad appeared to be large and it was not clear in the end frame that the packaging stated it was the 20-cm sized pan. Furthermore, we noted that the sizes of the other pans were not stated. While we acknowledged that the end frame stated “from £19.99”, and that consumers would generally associate a “from” price with the smallest product in the range, we considered that was insufficient to alter the impression that the large pan featured throughout the ad was the one that cost £19.99.

Because we considered that consumers would understand the “from” price to relate to the pan size shown most frequently and prominently, when that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.18 (Prices)

2. Not upheld

We noted the “non-stick” claim, which we considered consumers would likely understand to mean that food cooked in the pan without the addition of oil would not stick to it, would be easily removable and, if there was any residue, that would also be easy to remove as depicted. We acknowledged that to obtain the best non-stick capability the pan had to be seasoned before first use as stated in the product instructions. We considered the video evidence of internal testing submitted by JML Direct and accepted that it demonstrated in real time, that a pan, seasoned first as instructed, would fry an egg without oil that did not stick and which left virtually no residue behind.

While we understood the complainant had difficulty frying an egg with no oil, based on the information provided we concluded that the “non-stick” claim was not misleading and had been substantiated.

On this point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.12 (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.

3. Upheld

We considered that consumers would likely understand from the claims “tough, scratch resistant” that ordinary cooking utensils made both of metal or other material depicted as being used in the pan, would not scratch it. However, we also considered that the visual of the screws being swirled around in the pan implied that the pan had a much higher level of scratch resistance, and indicated that consumers would not need to take any precautions to avoid scratching the surface while using the pan for its intended purpose.

While we acknowledged that testing demonstrated the pans were scratch-resistant, and that JML Direct believed the abrasion test was more strenuous than the screws in the pan, we noted the product instructions advised against using sharp cutlery and stacking with other metal pans. We considered those were reasonable precautions to avoid scratching the surface of the pan. However, because the ad implied that such precautions were not necessary, we concluded that the ad exaggerated the capability of the product, and that it was misleading.

On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2, (Misleading advertising) and 3.12 (Exaggeration)

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told JML Direct to ensure that they made clear which products price statements related to in future. We also told them to ensure they did not exaggerate the non-scratch capability or performance of their products.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.12     3.18     3.2     3.3     3.3.1     3.9    

---

More on

• Home and garden

---