Ad description
A marketing document e-mailed to potential customers, for a security fogging systems manufacturer, featured a chart headed "SECURITY FOGGING SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS CHART". Explanatory text stated "Based on LOSS RISK LEVEL according to how many seconds each product would take to produce sufficient fog to fill an average sized (200 Cubic metre) room with a density level to reduce visibility distance to less than 50cm as recommended by VvBO". The chart compared a number of different security fogging systems and stated that the "Smoke Screen Rapid" would take 70 seconds to fill a room and the "Smoke Screen Rapid HP" would take 30 seconds to fill a room, with an estimated percentage loss risk level of 95%, whereas the "Fog Bandit 240DB" would take 4 seconds to fill a room, with a loss risk level of less than 5%.
Issue
Concept Smoke Screen Ltd, who manufactured the Smoke Screen Rapid and the Smoke Screen Rapid HP, challenged whether the comparison was misleading, because they did not believe the information provided in relation to their products could be substantiated.
Response
Bandit UK Ltd (BU) said their intention in producing the comparison document had been to assist consumers in understanding the difference in performance between the various security fogging systems on the market. They said that not all manufacturers were open and clear about the performance of their systems, based on how much fog they produced per second and how dense the fog produced was, which could make it difficult for consumers to understand which system would best meet their security needs. In the absence of those performance measures being made available by other manufacturers, they told us they had produced the comparison chart based on a set and known 'physics ratio' used in conjunction with information extracted from the Smoke Screen product guide and a measurement of the Smoke Screen's consumption rate, which had allowed them to calculate the quantity and density of fog produced by the products. They provided extracts of the product guides and two photographs, which they told us showed a liquid bag from the Smoke Screen, on weighing scales, before and after a 30-second fog ejection test and which they said provided evidence of the Smoke Screen's consumption rate. They provided us with copies of their calculations and also referred us to a Wikipedia article titled "Aerosol", which they felt provided further support for them.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA accepted BU may have calculated the quoted performance figures for their competitors' products using a scientific formula in conjunction with information they had gathered about those products from various sources. However, we were concerned that the photographs provided in support of the consumption rate of the Smoke Screen products were not sufficient to allow us to determine under what conditions the relevant test had been carried out and, further, that the calculations themselves stated that they were based on an assumed particle size, for which we had not seen adequate substantiation. We considered that we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the performance figures quoted accurately reflected the performance of the Smoke Screen products when actually in use. We therefore concluded that the ad 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. and 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 ad must not appear again in its current form. We told BU to ensure they held adequate substantiation before making claims about competitors' products in future.
