Ad description
A magazine ad, for the Philips AVENT Electronic Breast Pump, stated "Our manual breast pump is so effective that it's clinically proven to express more milk than a hospital electric pump! ... No. 1 RECOMMENDED BREAST PUMP BY MUMS IN THE UK*". The asterisk linked to text that stated "*Based on December 2009 TNS online satisfaction survey conducted among more than 960 female users of childcare brands and products in the UK".
Issue
Medela UK Ltd challenged whether the claim "No. 1 RECOMMENDED BREAST PUMP BY MUMS IN THE UK" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Philips said the claim was based on a December 2009 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) online satisfaction survey, the results of which were checked by their data analysis partner. Philips explained that the report evaluated the Net Promoter Score (NPS) measurements, which was a method of measuring consumer satisfaction and loyalty to a brand or product; those who gave positive results were "promoters", those who gave negative responses were "detractors". They explained that the NPS was calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters.
Philips believed that the survey results substantiated the claim "No. 1 RECOMMENDED BREAST PUMP BY MUMS IN THE UK". They said they compared the NPS results with their nearest competitor with the largest market penetration, but did not take into account the results for other makes, because their market penetration was insignificantly low. They said the NPS percentage for the AVENT breast pump showed that it was higher than the NPS percentage of their nearest competitor. They said Philips' breast pump market penetration in the UK was significantly higher than the market penetration of the brand that had the second highest NPS percentage and therefore believed that, based on market penetration, four times more UK mothers in the UK recommended the AVENT breast pump than other brands. They argued that combining the percentage results of net promoters with market share showed which brand had the most recommenders by number. They believed that the number of respondents to the survey broadly compared with their respective market penetration percentage, and because the AVENT breast pump had the highest market penetration and the highest NPS, it was not misleading to claim that more mothers in the UK recommended that pump than any other brand.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that the mothers surveyed had not been asked to compare and then recommend breast pumps, but to rate the model that they currently used and asked whether they would recommend that model. We considered that the basis for the claim was made clear in the linked small print, which stated "online satisfaction survey".
We noted from the survey that 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. UK mothers who used breast pumps had been surveyed, but also noted the small print in the ad stated that the claim was based on a survey conducted among more than "960 female users", which we understood referred to the number surveyed for all childcare products, not just breast pumps. We therefore considered that the claim that "960 female users" had been surveyed gave a misleading impression of the number of women surveyed on the use of breast pumps.
We noted from the survey results that the Avent breast pump had received the highest NPS percentage compared to their nearest competitor. However, we also noted that over four times as many mothers were questioned about their use of the Avent breast pump than those questioned about the use of their nearest competitor's brand. We understood that the results for the other competitor brands had been disregarded, because their market penetration was small, but also noted that although the number of survey respondents was low, one of the competitor brands had received the same NPS percentage as the AVENT pump.
We noted Philips' arguments that their market penetration was four times higher than the second placed brand, but considered that, because the claim was based on satisfaction with the pump and not sales, using four times the number of Philips respondents was not a robust way to determine whether their product was "recommended" by more users than their rivals. Although we understood that there was no pre-selection of brand users or particular brands surveyed and that the mothers were commenting on the brand they used, we nonetheless considered that the large number of Philips' respondents compared to the lower numbers for their competitors may have unfairly weighted the result, because a higher number of rival brand respondents might have significantly affected the "promoter" results and percentages for those brands especially given the marginal difference.
We also noted the claim was based on the results of only two brands and did not take into account the NPS results for other breast pumps used by mothers in the UK, in particular the brand that, although based on a lower number of respondents, had the same NPS percentage.
For those reasons, we disagreed with the conclusions Philips had drawn from the satisfaction survey and concluded that the claim "No. 1 RECOMMENDED BREAST PUMP BY MUMS IN THE UK" had not been substantiated and was misleading.
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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
