Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The interpretation of a “premier” claim is likely to depend on the context in which the claim appears. Generally, “premier” claims are likely to be understood as meaning “best-selling” (in the same way as “no.1” or “leading” claims), or will be considered an objective or subjective superlative claim. When making any objective comparative claim, marketers must comply with certain rules (see Comparisons: general and Comparisons: Identifiable competitors for further advice)).
Premier as a best-selling claim
Premier as a subjective or objective superlative claim
Premier as a best-selling claim
Premier claims are often understood to mean best-selling. Best-selling claims are objective comparative claims. Marketers must hold evidence in respect of all claims which consumers are likely to regard as objective and which are capable of objective substantiation (Rule 3.7). The nature of the evidence required to substantiate these claims will vary depending on the context in which the claim is made and how it is likely to be understood by its audience, but in all such cases it is likely that comparative evidence relating to unit-sales, market share, or both, will be required.
By way of example, the ASA determined that the AA’s claim to be ‘The UK’s number 1 breakdown service provider’ would be interpreted as a ‘best-selling’ claim i.e. that the AA had the most members compared to their competitors in the UK breakdown insurance market. The ad was considered misleading, because the AA did not have the membership figures of their competitors to compare against their own, and to evidence the fact that they had the most (AA Ltd, 20 July 2022). See also ASTOK T/a TVBet, 15 April 2020.
For more information on best-selling claims, see Types of claims: “Best-selling”. Further advice is also available in Substantiation.
Premier as a subjective or objective superlative claim
In some contexts, a ‘premier’ claim will be interpreted as another type of claim illustrating objective superiority, rather than a best-selling claim.
For example, in 2013 the ASA considered that the claim "North East's Premier Driving School" was likely to be interpreted as an objective superiority claim, and that without further information explaining the grounds on which the claim was made, consumers were likely to understand that Bradleys had, for example, the most pupils, the highest pass rate or the highest financial turnover in the area. In this instance, the advertiser tried pointing to the high number of testimonials on their website to substantiate the claim, but the ASA did not think consumers would understand the claim to be based on the high number of testimonials. As such, the claim had not been sufficiently substantiated, and was misleading (Bradleys School of Motoring, 30 January 2013).
In some circumstances, the ASA may regard ‘premier’ claims as subjective matters of opinion. Claims such as “premier comfort” are likely to be considered as such, although this will ultimately depend on the context in which they appear. See Types of claims: Puffery and expressions of opinion for more information on how these types of claims are viewed by the ASA.
Advertisers should be aware that a claim may be considered objective if it is presented as the outcome of a customer survey.
See Types of claims: superlative and Types of claims: “Best” for more information.
Objective comparative claims
When making an objective comparative claim such as “best-selling”, marketers must comply with rules on comparative claims (see Comparisons: general, Comparisons: identifiable competitors, and Comparisons: verifiability).