Ad description
Claims on www.vue.com stated "VueXTREME … TWICE THE SIZE OF A DOUBLE DECKER BUS … NEW SUPER SIZED SCREENS" and listed the cinemas where VueXtreme was available. Text stated "*Ticket price upgrade applies for Vue Xtreme Screens". Text continued "Now booking in VueXtreme at selected cinemas" and listed the films available for booking.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because he understood that some films might not fill the screen.
Response
Vue Entertainment Ltd (Vue Entertainment) said they did not believe their advertising was misleading because both the screen and the film image were as large as the advertising suggested. Vue Entertainment said that films did not always fit the entire screen. They said that the smallest film image shown at their venues was approximately 80% of the respective screen size. They provided calculations that showed 80% of the total screen size for each cinema venue compared with the average size of a double-decker bus, which was calculated from four measurements that were derived from online sources. All film images were shown to be more than twice the size of an average double-decker bus, apart from the Glasgow Fort venue, the opening of which, Vue Entertainment explained, post-dated the launch of the advertising campaign. They explained that they were not permitted to change the aspect ratio of the film image, as this would ruin the quality of image. They pointed out that the film image that the complainant had referred to was over two and a half times larger than the average size of a double-decker bus and provided measurements to show that the screen was 71% larger than the second largest cinema screen in the area.
Assessment
Not Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that Vue Entertainment had provided evidence to show that, in all of their cinema venues but one, the smallest film image was over twice the average size of a double decker bus. We noted that Vue Entertainment stated the exception, Glasgow Fort cinema, had opened in August 2013, after the advertising campaign had been launched. We noted that Vue Entertainment had used four different measurements to calculate the average size of a double-decker bus. We considered that the online sources, from which the measurements were derived, were reliable. We noted that Vue Entertainment provided measurements for the second largest cinema screen in the area, which showed that the screen that the complainant was referring to was 71% larger. We noted that Vue Entertainment had calculated that the film image the complainant had referred to was two and a half times larger than the average size of a double-decker bus. We considered that the film image might have been perceived to be smaller because of the overall size of the screen. We noted that the claim referred only to the size of the screen and not the size of the film image. We considered that, because the film image in all venues that were open at the time of the ad were as large as the advertising had suggested, qualification that film images might not fit the screen was not required. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) and
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
