Background
Summary of Council decision:
Nine issues were investigated, of which eight were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
Ads promoted storage heaters:
a. A press ad included the claims "The most efficient German storage heater in the UK", "... most efficient German storage radiator on the market", "... reducing energy wastage" and "... use less energy".
b. A direct mailing, stated "... compatible with Economy 7".
c. An online brochure, included a comparison using the information from the test by "BISRA". Further text stated "Costing comparison - example based on average energy price … 3.5kw over 1 hour @Economy 7 @ 7 pence = 24.5 pence* 1.5kw over 1 hour @normal rate @ 14 pence = 21 pence* Fischer heaters can also use Economy 7 so the unit price could reduce to 11 pence, costing 16 pence per hour. We would use the energy in a ratio of 70/30 (day/night) delivering maximum savings compared to night storage …*Depending on your electricity supplier. When installed with our electric thermostat and over a heating period of 230 days".
d. Claims on www.fischerfutureheat.com, stated "... no other German Storage Heater can match our running cost" and "... we provide the best value German storage radiator in the market".
Issue
Four complainants challenged whether the claims:
1. "The most efficient German storage heater in the UK" in ad (a); and,
Three complainants challenged whether the claims:
2. "compatible with Economy 7" in ad (b) could be substantiated.
One complainant challenged whether the claims:
3. "most efficient German storage radiator on the market" in ad (a);
4. "reducing energy wastage" in ad (a);
5. "Use less energy" in ad (a);
6. "No other German Storage Heater can match our running cost" in ad (d);
7. "We provide the best value German storage radiator in the market" in ad (d); and
8. "70/30 (day/night) delivering maximum savings compared to night storage" in ad (c) could be substantiated.
9. Two complainants challenged whether the "average energy price" comparison in ad (c) was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Fischer Future Heat UK Ltd said they did not intend to mislead consumers and aimed to clarify information directly with customers. They did not consider that it was possible to include all information in their ads, and explained that they conducted independent tests, which were cited on their website, to substantiate the capabilities of their products.
1. They said they were one of a few German storage heater manufacturers that distributed and manufactured the product in Germany. They said an independent organisation carried out tests on the product, demonstrating that it was more efficient than other storage heaters in the UK. They provided a link to a page linked to their website, which documented a test of the product's efficiency against another storage heater and one other German storage heater, explaining that they were not aware of any other tests conducted in the UK by another German storage heater manufacturer and, therefore, the claim was based on the only comparison available.
2. They said Economy 7 was an energy tariff through which energy companies offered seven hours of low-cost energy during the night. They explained that their heaters controlled temperature throughout the day and night, rather than conventional storage heater manufacturers, making them compatible with Economy 7.
3. Fischer said "the market" meant the UK market because they targeted their products to the British consumer. They referred to their response in point one, which they said demonstrated that they provided the "most efficient German storage radiator".
4. They said conventional storage heaters did not control room temperature and, therefore, wasted heat by overheating when heat was not required, which they pointed out was particularly wasteful given recent changes to the UK climate, with Spring and Autumn months progressively recording higher temperatures. They explained that their product included thermostats that control room temperature in accordance with the customer's programme settings and adjust the charge accordingly. They provided a link to information about thermostats and controls on an independent energy-saving organisation's website, which they said demonstrated how storage heaters, such as theirs, were more efficient. They said that their efficiency was also demonstrated by the tests they had conducted, referred to in point one of their response.
5. Fischer said the tests referred to in point one of their response demonstrated that their product used less energy in comparison to other branded German storage heaters, conventional night storage heaters and Quantum night storage heaters. They also pointed out that the test against the specific brand showed the same result.
6. They referred to point five of their response and explained that, because they used less energy, it cost less to run.
7. Fischer said while heating was essential, there was an increasing need for consumers to use less heating for a variety of reasons. These included environmental and rising costs and, therefore, assessing whether a heater provided good value was based on how comfortably it heated a home, at what usage and at what cost. They said their tests demonstrated that the product maintained a good room temperature whilst using less energy.
8. They provided calculations in support of the "70/30 (day/night)" claim, which was based on the total power input, recorded by the test referred to in their response to point one, divided by 17 hours, to represent daytime, and 7 hours, to represent night-time, expressed as a percentage. They explained that the ratio was favourable because the room could be maintained at the optimum temperature whilst eliminating wastage and keeping costs low and provided a link to a competitor's tests to show their ratio was advantageous.
9. They said that using the average energy prices was the best way they could calculate the running costs of the product, explaining that the figure was irrelevant because energy prices were constantly fluctuating.
Assessment
1. & 3. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would interpret the claim "The most efficient German storage heater in the UK" and "... most efficient German storage radiator on the market" in ad (a) to mean that there was comparative evidence that demonstrated the product was more efficient than other German storage heaters on the UK market. While Fischer provided a test of their own product and two other storage heaters, one of which was German, in which Fischer's heater was recorded as using less energy, we considered that consumers would interpret the claim to refer to all German storage heaters on the UK market. We considered that a comparison with two other competitors was not sufficient, unless there were no other competitors on the market, which we understood was not the case. We also noted that the tests were not repeated and one test was conducted by a different organisation and all the tests were completed in different circumstances, such as with different starting outside temperatures. Because Fischer did not have sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that 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.
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),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other Comparisons).
2. Not upheld
We understood that Economy 7 was a type of energy tariff provided by UK electricity suppliers at an off-peak low-cost rate during the night. The complainant believed that the claim "compatible with Economy 7" misleadingly implied that there was a cost benefit in using the advertisers' heater on that tariff during the day. However, we considered that consumers would interpret the claim to mean that the product could be used with the Economy 7 energy tariff, which we understood to be the case. Because of that, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
On that point, 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. (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), but did not find it in breach.
4 & 5. Upheld
We considered, for the reasons outlined in point one, that the evidence provided by Fischer was not sufficient to substantiate the claim that the product reduced "energy wasteage" and used "less energy". While we noted Fischer had provided a link to general information about thermostats and controls, we also noted we had not seen documentary evidence to show that their product saved energy in comparison to other storage heaters, as the claim implied. We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
On that 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.
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),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other Comparisons).
6. & 7. Upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the claim "... no other German Storage Heater can match our running cost" and "We provide the best value German storage radiator in the market" to mean that Fischer had comparative evidence to demonstrate that their running costs were lower than other competitors on the market. For the reasons outlined in point one, the evidence provided by Fischer was not sufficient to substantiate the claim. Because of that, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that 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.
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),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other Comparisons).
8. Upheld
We considered that consumers would interpret the claim to mean there was sufficient comparative evidence to demonstrate that, due to its day to night ratio, Fischer storage heaters were able to provide greater savings than other night storage heaters. Fischer provided calculations based on the independent test to substantiate the "70/30" day and night ratio, which were based on the total energy output recorded in the test conducted by an independent organisation. However, they had not provided evidence to demonstrate that the outcome of that ratio was maximum savings in comparison to other night storage heaters. Because of that, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that 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.
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),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other Comparisons).
9. Upheld
We considered that consumers would interpret the average energy price comparison to represent a likely example of the savings that could be expected from buying a Fischer heater, and that comparative evidence existed to substantiate the comparison. However, we noted Fischer did not provide details of how the savings claim was calculated or provide evidence to substantiate the figures in those calculations. Because we had not seen sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the claim, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that 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.
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),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Fischer Future Heat UK Ltd to ensure that they held sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate claims relating to their product, including its efficiency, energy usage and running costs.
