Ad description
A website, a social media feed and a local magazine ad for Pickering's Gin:
a. The website www.pickeringsgin.com stated "This multi award winning, marvellously mixed gin is hand crafted at Summerhall Distillery - the first gin distillery to be established in Edinburgh for over 150 years". A further page, headed "SUMMERHALL DISTILLERY" stated "Edinburgh's first gin distillery in over 150 years. Where we produce our small batches of hand crafted [sic], beautifully balanced, marvellously mixed Pickering's Gin".
b. The Twitter feed for Pickering's Gin featured a biography statement, which read "Marvellously mixed, handcrafted gin from Summerhall Distillery - Edinburgh's 1st gin distillery in over 150 yrs".
c. An ad in a local magazine featured a roundel with text that stated "EDINBURGH'S 1st GIN DISTILLERY IN OVER 150 YEARS EST 2013".
Issue
The Spencerfield Spirit Company Ltd challenged whether the claims that the Summerhall Distillery was the first gin distillery in Edinburgh for over 150 years was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Summerhall Distillery Ltd t/a Pickering's Gin stated that they were set up in 2013 and based in Summerhall in central Edinburgh, which was an arts centre containing a brewery. They stated that their distillery, which had not been used for making gin before, was on this site. Pickering's said they understood that part of the complainant's contention was that the Spencerfield distillery in Edinburgh predated that at Summerhall, but that their research had confirmed that Spencerfield's bottling and distillation took place outwith the City of Edinburgh Council boundary. They stated that they had used internet searches, and Council archives, and had consulted an independent expert on the history of Edinburgh gin. They provided a link to an article on the complainant's website, much of the factual content of which they stated was written by this expert. They also provided a link to the expert's website, which contained the ‘150 years’ claim.
Pickering's also understood that the complainant believed that other gin distilleries had operated in Edinburgh over the last 150 years, but said that that these had only been wine merchants, whisky blenders or general distillers allowing the use of their premises to make gin alongside the manufacture of other alcoholic drinks. They stated that these companies were established over 150 years ago and that there was no concrete evidence to support them being exclusive gin distillers, unlike Pickering's. They also stated that, although the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling had distilling equipment, it was used only for teaching and research, and consumers would not understand this to be a distillery. They said they did not dispute that gin was made in Edinburgh within the last 150 years, but that this was not what their claim stated. Rather, Pickering's stated that they were the first dedicated gin distillery established in 150 years, and there was no evidence of there being another sole purpose, bricks and mortar gin distillery having been built in Edinburgh in the last 150 years by anyone other than them and, subsequently, Spencerfield. They also noted that those producers who had operated in premises in Leith prior to 1920 were not established within the city of Edinburgh, as Leith was a separate town until that point. They said that if there had been a genuine, sole purpose gin distillery set up in Edinburgh in the last 150 years they and their independent expert would have found it.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the statement "Edinburgh's 1st gin distillery in over 150 years" in all the ads as a claim that a gin distillery had not operated within the city during that period and that Pickering's was the first to do so since then. We noted Pickering's statement that their claim related to the establishment (not just operation) of a gin distillery, but considered that this was not made clear in the claim and that consumers would not interpret it in this way. We also acknowledged their view that it related only to gin-exclusive distilleries, and that a distillery in premises also used for other spirits would therefore not be in the scope of this claim. However, the claim did not refer to the 'exclusive' nature of the distillery and we therefore considered that consumers would understand it to relate to all commercial gin distilleries, not just those operating in premises or by companies exclusively manufacturing gin. We agreed that the facilities at the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling did not constitute a commercial distillery and would therefore not have a bearing on the claim. We noted that an advert, provided by the complainant, for gin distilled in Leith appeared in 1934, placed by a manufacturer of gin and whisky. We also noted an online entry, again provided by the complainant, from the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), which stated that a warehouse and office complex in Leith, Edinburgh were used to distil gin in the 1930s. An archived Edinburgh Post Office directory from 1934 to 1935 also detailed a distiller of gin in nearby premises. In the absence of evidence disputing the RCAHMS statement, we therefore understood that gin had been distilled in Edinburgh over the last 150 years and concluded that the claim "Edinburgh's 1st gin distillery in over 150 years" had not been substantiated.
We considered that the other statement, "the first gin distillery to be established in Edinburgh for over 150 years" in ad (a), would be understood as a claim that the distillery where Pickering's operated was the first new facility of this type to be opened within the last 150 years, not that it was the only operational distillery within this timeframe. We therefore expected that the advertiser should be able to demonstrate that no new gin distilleries were recorded as having been established since 1863 and that any operating within the last 150 years had been opened before this date. We understood that there was evidence of at least one gin distillery operating within Edinburgh in the 1930s and that this was publicly accessible information that Pickering's should have accounted for as part of the basis for their claim. We had not been provided with evidence to demonstrate when this distillery had been opened, and therefore to show that it had not been established within the last 150 years. Because there was evidence of distillery operations within Edinburgh since 1863, the establishment of which had not been demonstrated to predate this period, we concluded that the claim "the first gin distillery to be established in Edinburgh for over 150 years" had not been substantiated. We considered that linking the product to the heritage of the spirit trade in Edinburgh and to imply that it was related to a revival of this industry was likely to be of particular interest to some consumers, and that its provenance in this context was therefore material information. Because the claims had not been substantiated, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
The ads 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), 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.
(Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Summerhall Distillery Ltd not to claim that theirs was the first gin distillery to be established or operational within Edinburgh since 1863 unless they held evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.
