Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which all were Not upheld.
Ad description
A local press ad for Indo European Foods Ltd, a food importer/distributer company, stated "Thank you, our valued customers ... Your united efforts rewarded us". Underneath was a photo of four bags of rice and text stated "Kohinoor Basmati is now the Leading Branded Dry Basmati Rice in the Big Bags Category in UK Grocery Multiples (52 w/e 22 June 13 IRI Value & Volume Sales in Major Grocery Multiples for Sizes 4kg and above). Indo European Foods Ltd. is the Leading Rice Supplier in the Big Bags Category. (52 w/e 22 June 13 IRI Value Sales in SIG Grocery Outlets for Sizes 4kg and above). Kohinoor is the #1 Branded Dry Rice Brand in Big Bags Category. (52 w/e 22 June 13 IRI Value & Volume Sales in SIG Grocery Outlets for Sizes 4kg and above)".
Issue
Tilda Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. Kohinoor Basmati is now the Leading Branded Dry Basmati Rice in the Big Bags Category in UK Grocery Multiples (52 w/e 22 June 13 IRI Value & Volume Sales in Major Grocery Multiples for Sizes 4kg and above).
2. Indo European Foods Ltd. is the Leading Rice Supplier in the Bag Bags Category. (52 w/e 22 June 13 IRI Value Sales in SIG Grocery Outlets for Sizes 4kg and above)
3. Kohinoor is the #1 Branded Dry Rice Brand in Big Bags Category. (52 w/e 22 June 13 IRI Value & Volume Sales in SIG Grocery Outlets for Sizes 4kg and above).
Response
1., 2. & 3.
Indo European Foods Ltd said that on receipt of the complaint they noticed a print mistake in the ad, and they meant to refer to sizes '5 kg and above' rather than '4 kg and above' in each of the three claims. They withdrew the ad, assured us that they would not make the claims again, and contacted Tilda Ltd and the publisher to advise them of this.
We asked Tilda Ltd if they were satisfied with this response, but they remained concerned about the claims. They said they were the UK's No.1 Big Bag Rice brand, where "big bags" was defined as all bags 4 kg and above, excluding own label 4 kg. They considered the use of the term "big bags" misleading if the 4 kg bag was omitted. They said the 4 kg bag was the third largest bag that accounted for around 18% of basmati big bags volume, and the 4 kg bag should be included in any claim referring to "big bags".
In response, Indo European Foods Ltd said 4 kg bags only accounted for 18% of the total volume, and out of 60 brands there were only two or three brands that sold 4 kg size bags. They acknowledged that all sizes above 4 kg were classified as "big bags", but said to state that they were the leading brand for 5 kg and above sizes was factually correct.
They noted that "big bags" was a category as defined in IRi (the market research company credited in the ad) data, and said they had verified the statements with IRi, who were satisfied that the claims were accurate as long as they were clear that they referred to sizes 5 kg and above.
Assessment
1., 2. & 3. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the ad originally claimed that Indo European Foods Ltd was the lead supplier in the "big bags" category for sizes 4 kg and above, which was misleading as Tilda Ltd was the lead supplier within that definition of "big bags". However, we also noted that Indo European Foods Ltd admitted this was a mistake and withdrew the ad, giving an assurance that any future claim to be the lead supplier in the "big bags" category would include the qualification 'sizes 5 kg and above'.
We understood that Tilda Ltd considered the omission of the 4 kg bag from the amended claims to be a deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent the data. However, we noted that with the qualification, the claim was factually correct and was approved by the IRi. We also acknowledged Tilda's point that the usual definition of "big bag" was 4 kg and over, but we considered that consumers were unlikely to be aware of any definition of "big bag". We noted that the term "big bags" was immediately qualified in the revised claims, and concluded that it was therefore unlikely that consumers would be misled.
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 3.38 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. (Comparisons) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
