Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on www.blackravioli.com, for a product designed to eliminate vibrations from affecting audio and visual systems, featured text on the home page which stated "BAD VIBRATIONS ELIMINATED Vibration constitutes the basis of all great performances, but bad vibrations from system components lead to the introduction of unwelcome noise and colouration which negatively affects reproduction. The Black Ravioli pad utilises state of the art, precision engineered technology which works in a unique and revolutionary way to eliminate these bad vibrations. The versatility of the Black Ravioli Pad means that it will work with all types of audio and visual systems, allowing them to perform to the best of their ability- leaving you with nothing but good vibrations".
Text on the 'BR.BIG FOOT RANGE' page stated "The Big Foot range of products are the premium products in the Black Ravioli range. They have been have been available in the UK since early 2010 and have proven extremely successful at extracting the best performance across a wide range of systems, irrespective of the component unit cost".
Text on the 'Technology' page, beneath the heading "THE SYSTEM" stated "The Black Ravioli system considers the problem of vibration for the whole process of reproducing an audio or visual performance, with the aim of so far as reasonably practicable to eliminate the vibration or mitigate the consequence of it to deliver an engaging performance". Further text stated "The system will provide full function during shutdown to continually account for the vibration threat from the external environment that is always present 24/7. This includes, the building, electrical supply lines, other local electrical equipment, and the system structures and supports all of which continually impart vibration to the equipment components, albeit at a low level. Research has shown this aspect is a significant factor in the context of whole system performance."
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated, that the:
1. Black Ravioli pad worked in a unique and revolutionary way;
2. product improved the sound quality of audio equipment; and
3. product would protect systems from 'vibration threat'.
Response
1. Sailforth said they had removed the word "revolutionary" as a result of their own review. They said the ad did not claim that the product utilised unique technology. Rather, they said the product used commercially available technology which was applied in a unique fashion.
2. Sailforth said the website did not claim that the Black Ravioli product could improve the sound quality of audio equipment. Rather, they said the ad made clear that the product could mitigate threats to the performance of the sound quality of audio equipment. They said there was no approved audio industry standard or agreed test regime to validate claims for products that purported to aid audio system performance. They therefore believed that the claims were not capable of objective substantiation. However, they said the claims were supported by their own test regime, customer feedback and independent review findings.
3. Sailforth believed the ad made clear that the product aimed to reduce 'vibration threat' as far as reasonably practicable, but did not claim that the product would eliminate 'vibration threat' altogether. They reiterated their argument that the claims were not capable of objective substantiation.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Sailforth had removed the word "revolutionary" from the claim. We also noted the complainant's concern that the advertised product was not subject to a patent. However, we acknowledged that the product may operate in a unique and revolutionary way in the absence of a patent. Notwithstanding that, we were concerned that we had not seen any evidence to demonstrate that the product worked in a unique and revolutionary way. On that basis, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
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. Upheld
We acknowledged Sailforth's belief that the claims were not capable of objective substantiation. However, we noted the ad stated that the advertised product worked with all types of audio and visual systems and allowed them to perform to the best of their ability. We also noted the ad stated that the product had proven extremely successful at extracting the best performance across a wide range of systems. In that context, we considered consumers would understand the claims to mean that objective testing had been performed, which demonstrated that the advertised product allowed audio and visual systems to perform at an optimum level. We considered that in order to substantiate the claims we would need to see either objective testing or robust independent testing on consumers which demonstrated that the product enabled audio and visual systems to perform at an optimum level. Because we had seen no such evidence, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
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), 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
We again acknowledged Sailforth's belief that the claims were not capable of objective substantiation. However, we noted the ad stated that the advertised product worked in a manner which eliminated bad vibrations. We also noted the ad stated that the system provided full function during shutdown to account for the vibration threat that existed at all times and further made clear that research had shown that feature to be a significant factor affecting overall system performance. In that context, we considered consumers would understand the claims to mean that objective testing had been performed which demonstrated that the product eliminated the impact of vibration on audio and visual equipment. We considered that to substantiate such claims, we would need to see objective testing or robust independent testing on consumers which demonstrated that the product eliminated the impact of vibration on audio and visual equipment. Because we had seen no such evidence, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
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), 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Sailforth to ensure they held substantiation to support future claims.
