Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website ad, presented in the form of an opinion-style piece, on www.carbidoff.com, was headed "BMW Dealerships are Cheaper than Mr Clutch - True or False?". Text stated "Mr Clutch has been around since 1978 and in the car clutch repair business you don't stay around that long if you're not doing something right. But with the various Mr Clutch reviews around it's hard to know what to believe ... It's worth remembering that back then in 1978 there wasn't the huge choice of places to go for car repairs that we have now ... There was a real need for a quality repair business that could quickly and easily repair clutches at a good price. But today things have changed. Chances are your car needs special equipment and specially trained mechanics to deal with your car's problem. The days of the general repairer being able to fix all types of car are coming to an end". Under the heading "Are Specialist Mechanics Better Than General Clutch Mechanics?", text continued "And this is where I think the problem lies for Mr Clutch. There's no question they have some very good mechanics. But they don't appear to have any specialists in any make of car. It's a bit like if you're ill. You go to your doctor, a general practitioner, and if they can't sort it out they refer you to a specialist. I know for a fact that Main dealers spend a lot of time and money training their mechanics to learn about new features and processes on their brand of car. They do this so that they are experts in all aspects of the brand. This means they can recognise other problems that may also be about to happen when they're dealing with the clutch". Under the heading "Some Mr Clutch mechanics are very good", text stated "Would a Mr Clutch mechanic spot that, the good ones definitely, the others, highly unlikely and if you read other Mr Clutch reviews that's often what they say. There doesn't seem to be a uniform level of service. I think what would be useful is if at their branches they had a list of mechanics and what their particular specialist was. That way if your BMW clutch goes and you see they have someone who's an expert in BMW's [sic] you know you're safe going there. But they don't have anything like that yet so why use them instead of a Main dealer or a specialist independent BMW garage". Under the heading "The Bottom Line To This Review", text stated "With alternatives like CarBidOff and the other specialist garages around unless you know that the Mr Clutch mechanic dealing with your car has specific expertise in your model, I think you would do better trying those alternatives".
Issue
Mr Clutch Autocentres Ltd challenged whether:
1. the advertiser could substantiate the implied claims that a lack of specialism meant Mr Clutch was unable to deal with the complexities of modern vehicles; and
2. the ad denigrated the Mr Clutch brand.
Response
1. CarBidOff said that over a number of years there had been various complaints on many respected websites about the standard of work carried out by Mr Clutch. They provided links to an online national press article and a discussion forum on a local press website. CarBidOff said that at no time had Mr Clutch denied any of the claims on various sites or replied to the complaints to say they were untrue, and because of that they had written an article highlighting those complaints.
2. CarBidOff said the ad did not denigrate the Mr Clutch brand, because it just repeated what had already been in the public domain for a number of years.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would understand the overall message of the ad to be that, due to the complexities of modern vehicles, mechanics who specialised in certain brands of cars would be better at repairing those car brands than general mechanics. We considered that in that context the specific references to Mr Clutch, including references to negative online reviews of some Mr Clutch branches, would be understood to mean that the issues which led customers to negatively review work undertaken at some Mr Clutch branches were directly related to a lack of specialism. We considered we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate that that was the case. We concluded the ad was misleading.
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), 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).
2. Upheld
We noted the ad was presented in such a way that it appeared to be an opinion-style article written by an independent individual, including, for example, that it referred to CarBidOff as "they" rather than "we". We also noted the inference of the ad was that, due to a lack of specialism, Mr Clutch mechanics were unable to deal with the complexities of modern vehicles, and that had resulted in negative reviews of some of their branches. Because we had not seen evidence that was the case, and because the ad was presented as independent commentary when it was not, we concluded the ad discredited and denigrated Mr Clutch.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.42 3.42 Marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product, marketer, trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark. (Imitation and Denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told CarBidOff to ensure they held adequate substantiation to support their claims, and to ensure their advertising did not discredit or denigrate other advertisers.
