Ad description
A website and paid-for Facebook post for a handheld shower head seen on 27 May 2017:
a. Text on the website stated "Say goodbye to low water pressure with our newly design handheld shower head, with 250 water laser perforated outlet technology, increasing water pressure up to 200%".
b. The paid-for Facebook post featured the claim "Increase Your Shower Pressure By 200%".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims:
1. "increasing water pressure up to 200%" in ad (a) and "Increase Your Shower Pressure By 200%" in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. were verifiable.
Response
Seoulshower.com did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by seoulshower.com's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to understand from the claim “increase your shower pressure by 200%" in ad (b) to mean that by purchasing the shower head, the water pressure from their shower would increase by 200%. We considered that consumers would understand the claim "increasing water pressure up to 200%" in ad (a) to mean that a reasonable proportion of customers would see the water pressure on their shower increase by 200%. Because the advertiser did not provide any evidence in support of those claims, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
On that 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), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) 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).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required comparisons with identifiable competitors to be verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct a consumer to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate, or ask someone suitably qualified to do so.
We considered that the claims “increase your shower pressure by 200%" and "increasing water pressure up to 200%" were comparative claims with other shower heads, and that it was reasonable to assume that consumers would be able to identify other companies who sold shower heads. We therefore considered that the claims were comparisons against identifiable competitors.
We noted that there was no information in either ad which provided information about the basis of the comparison and how it had been calculated. We therefore concluded that the ads had not allowed consumers or competitors to verify the comparisons, and as such, the ads were in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current forms. We told Seoulshower.com not to make claims about the water pressure of their product if they did not hold evidence in support of those claims. We also told them that, when making comparative claims with identifiable competitors, to ensure they provided information in their ads which verified the claims. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.
