Ad description
A TV ad for Guerillascope featured a man and a woman discussing the merits of TV advertising. The man said, "Don't people just fast forward the ads anyway?" to which the woman replied, "Most people don't fast forward the ads, and if they do, Guerillascope won't charge you for them."
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "most people don't fast forward the ads, and if they do, Guerillascope won't charge you for them" could be substantiated.
Response
Guerillascope Ltd (Guerillascope) stated that TV was traded on a 'cost per thousand' impacts basis (CPT) which meant that advertisers paid an agreed price for every thousand people that tuned into an ad and that data was collected via the Broadcast Audience Research Board (BARB) data which was used to estimate the number of people watching television including which channels were being watched. They said the data was collected on a second-by-second and minute-by-minute basis and that viewing by individuals at anything other than normal speed, including those fast forwarding through an ad, was not reported and that those individuals were therefore not counted as viewers.
They said that according to various sources, the vast majority (80%+) of TV was watched live where it was not possible to fast forward any content. They also provided another report from a TV marketing body which stated that because 93% of TV was watched live, only 7% of ads were skipped. They believed it was therefore accurate to state that most people did not fast forward the ads.
They stated that their clients received a TV plan which was signed off before the ads were booked and were invoiced accordingly. They explained that the BARB data was examined throughout and that if an insufficient number of viewers were achieved through the agreed schedule, new spots would be added without charge until such a time that this number was reached. They believed it was therefore accurate to state "… and if they do, Guerillascope won't charge you for them". They provided an example schedule to illustrate this point.
Clearcast said the claim in question was not submitted at script stage but was added when filmed, at which stage substantiation was requested. It said it supported the advertiser's statements and considered that the claims were therefore supported.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the ad was aimed at businesses who may wish to think about advertising on television and that it was not being aimed at consumers. Although it did not directly identify Guerillascope as an advertising agency, we considered those businesses to whom the ad was targeted would understand this from its general presentation.
The advertiser referred to evidence which demonstrated that the vast majority of UK consumers did not fast forward through ads. We therefore considered that the claim "Most people don't fast forward the ads" had been substantiated.
We noted Guerillascope invoiced clients in advance of broadcast based on an agreed schedule containing an agreed number of spots, which itself were based on an agreed number of viewers (CPT). We understood BARB data was able to identify the total number of viewers from an extrapolated sample (the panel) and that if an ad were fast forwarded by those on the BARB panel with the relevant technology, it would be identified and the extrapolated number would subsequently not be included in the viewer total for that ad. If the total number of achieved viewers was lower than was agreed between the client and Guerillascope, new spots would be added without charge until such a time that this number was achieved. We therefore considered that the claim "… and if they do Guerillascope won't charge you for them" had been substantiated.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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. (Qualification) and 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
