Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Five posts across three different social networking sites for the EaziGlide frying pan range.
a. A post on EaziGlide's own Facebook page seen on 24 March 2015 stated "Our Eaziglide pans feature Neverstick2 - seven times stronger than conventional non-stick systems".
b. A second post on their Facebook page seen on 4 February 2015 stated "Neverstick1, Super-Strong non stick [sic], 5 times stronger than other non-sticks. Our new non-stick technology outperforms others in endurance, durability and strength”.
c. A third post on their Facebook page seen on 1 February 2015 stated “Neverstick2, Super-Strong non stick [sic], 7 times stronger than other non-sticks".
d. A 'pin' on their Pinterest page seen in February 2015 stated "The Eaziglide cookware collection is part of the Eazi family. It features our newest non-stick technology Neverstick2 - which is 7 times stronger than conventional non-stick systems, outperforming them in endurance, durability and strength”.
e. A post on their GooglePlus page seen on 16 January 2015 stated "The Eaziglide collection features our incredible innovation of non-stick, Neverstick2, which is seven times stronger than conventional non-stick. This means that the coating withstands 70,000 cycles, as tested by an independent abrasion test. To put this into perspective: other 3 coat non-stick systems will only withstand 10,000 cycles”. And “Eaziglide offers a new, easier and healthier way of cooking, with enhanced endurance, durability and strength that has never been seen before".
Issue
Meyer Group Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. in ads (a), (c), (d) and (e) that the Neverstick2 pan was seven times stronger than other non-stick frying pans, conventional or otherwise;
2. in ads (a), (c), (d) and (e) that the same pan outperformed others in endurance, durability and strength; and
3. in ad (b) "Neverstick1, Super-Strong non stick, 5 times stronger than other non-sticks".
Response
Imperial International Ltd provided a copy of their test results which they believed substantiated their comparative claims.
Assessment
1. Upheld
In relation to ads (a), (c) and (d), the ASA noted the “stronger than” claims referred to the Neverstick2 coating system used on Imperial’s EaziGlide cookware. However, we considered that in the context of the ads, the claims were likely to be interpreted as relating to the performance of the Neverstick2 coating when used for its intended purpose - in frying pans and other cookware. Consequently, we considered that consumers were likely to interpret Imperial’s claims in the ads as ones comparing the performance of their pans with the Neverstick2 coating with that of other non-stick pans on the market.
In relation to ad (e), for the reasons given above, we considered the comparison was related to the enhanced performance of the Neverstick2 coating owing to its reinforced system compared to other pans which had a “three coat” coating system. As such, we considered Imperial had made comparative claims across ads (a) to (e) and therefore, we expected them to hold robust substantiation to support them.
We acknowledged Imperial’s view that the details within the test report submitted demonstrated the advertised Neverstick2 coating was seven times stronger than other non-stick coating systems. Imperial had undertaken independent laboratory testing and had completed an abrasion test known as the dry reciprocating abrasion test (dry RAT) to assess the point at which 10% of the pan’s coating was “scrubbed off”. The dry RAT methodology used by Imperial involved completing the test at room temperature, using an abrasive pad which was changed at every 1,000 cycles and with the pad having a travelling speed of 60 strokes at 15 cm per minute.
We understood from the test report that twenty 9.5” forged aluminium frying pans, all of which had the Neverstick2 coating, were submitted for testing. The test report referred to samples 1, 2 and 3, and reported that all had withstood the dry RAT for 70,000 cycles. The test report stated that pans without Imperial’s reinforced coating had withstood 10,000 cycles of the test, but did not provide data on their performance.
Because we considered the claims in ads (a), (c) and (d) to refer to the relative performance of pans with non-stick coatings, we considered that Imperial should have tested the performance of competitors’ non-stick pans that were representative of those available on the market and that those results should have been reported.
Imperial had also undertaken an additional further dry RAT test using the same methodology described above on two different non-stick coating systems, which they understood were the most commonly used for non-stick coatings in cookware. That testing, which was on one pan for each of the coating systems, reported one of the coatings withstood 130 cycles while the other withstood 2,100 cycles.
We acknowledged that Imperial held evidence in relation to two coating systems. Imperial estimated that one was used in around 70% of unbranded cookware and the other was the main coating used by The Whitford Corporation, who they said was the world’s leading non-stick coating supplier for branded cookware. We understood from Imperial that there were a small number of companies that provided non-stick coatings for cookware and that a very small number of those had mainstream market penetration. We had not seen information that supported Imperial’s assertion about the market share held by the two tested non-stick coating systems and demonstrated that they were representative of the market. In the absence of this and because of the likely consumer interpretation of Imperial’s comparative claims, we considered the testing of the two coating systems was insufficient to support a general comparison with competitors’ pans available on the market.
As such, we considered Imperial held insufficient comparable evidence and therefore, concluded the claims in respect of ads (a), (c) and (d) had not been substantiated and were misleading.
In respect of ad (e), it specifically referenced the performance of the Neverstick2 coating compared to that of other “three coat” non-stick pans. Therefore, we considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim to mean it had been compared directly to the performance of other “three coat” non-stick pans. Because that had not been the case, we therefore concluded the claim in ad (e) had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the claims 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) 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. Upheld
We welcomed Imperial’s confirmation that the claims about the Neverstick2’s endurance, durability and strength would not be repeated.
As noted above, we recognised the claim “seven times stronger” had been made in relation to the advertised Neverstick2 non-stick coating. However, we considered that in the context of the ads, the claim was likely to be interpreted as relating to the performance of the Neverstick2 coating when used for its intended purpose – in frying pans and other cookware. Consequently, we considered that consumers were likely to interpret Imperial’s claims in the ads as ones comparing the performance of their EaziGlide pans with the Neverstick2 coating with that of other non-stick pans on the market. For that reason, we considered consumers were likely to interpret these claims as comparisons and therefore, we expected Imperial to hold comparative evidence which compared the performance of the Neverstick2 coating in their cookware to that of their competitors’ products. We acknowledged the report provided the testing outcomes of the submitted pans, but it did not provide detailed or sufficient information about the nature of tests carried out to test the pans’ endurance, durability and strength. In the absence of details about the tests undergone by Imperial’s pans and their competitors’ products, we concluded the claims about Imperial’s pans in terms of endurance, durability and strength had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On this point, the claims 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) 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).
3. Upheld
We noted ad (b) claimed the Neverstick1 coating was five times stronger than other non-sticks. As stated above in point 1, we considered in the context of the ad, the claim was likely to be interpreted as relating to the performance of the Neverstick1 coating in the context of its use in frying pans and other cookware. Consequently, we considered consumers were likely to interpret Imperial’s claim in the ad as one comparing the performance of their pans with the Neverstick1 coating to that of other non-stick pans on the market.
We acknowledged Imperial’s view that the details of the test report submitted demonstrated the advertised Neverstick1 was five times stronger based on the same test described above in point 1, for the Neverstick2. The test report showed that it withstood 35,000 cycles of the test and while the test report did not include data for the performance of the competitors’ pans, it reported such pans had withstood 5,000 cycles.
For the reasons given above, we considered that Imperial should have tested competitor pans that were representative of those available on the market and that those results should have been reported. While we recognised that Imperial held some comparative evidence, for the reasons given above in point 1, we considered the testing was not sufficiently representative of their competitors’ pans available on the market. We therefore considered their evidence was insufficient to support the specific comparative claim they had made. In the absence of sufficient comparative data to support such a comparative performance claim, we concluded it had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the claims 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) 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 claims must not appear again in their current form. We told Imperial International Ltd not to repeat the claims unless they held robust documentary evidence which compared the performance of their own pans and that of their competitors.
