Ad description
A magazine ad for an instant boiling-water tap, in August 2011, featured a picture of the product dispensing boiling water into a glass jug next to a roundel that stated "100°C on tap". Text underneath stated "Imagine 100°C boiling water instantly on tap. Tea, coffee, pasta or veg are ready to go now! Ultra-convenient and ultra-efficient, the iconic Quooker is fast becoming indispensable in the modern kitchen". Bullet-pointed text stated "Eco Friendly: Delivers exactly the amount of water you need, when you need it; Energy Efficient: Energy use only 3p a day, a saving of up to 55% against a kettle".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. that the product was "Eco Friendly";
2. that the product was "Energy Efficient"; and
3. "Energy use only 3p a day, a saving of up to 55% against a kettle".
Response
1. & 2. Quooker UK Ltd (Quooker) the product was eco friendly and energy efficient because it delivered just the amount of water consumers required each time. They said the standby power consumption of the product was 10W and it used patented vacuum technology to keep water at the required temperature. Quooker provided an Energy Analysis Report (EAR), produced by an independent energy consulting company, which they said assessed the efficiency of various methods for bringing water to the boil, including 'flashboil' devices such as the Quooker, as well as the total energy impact across the products' lifecycles.
They said the claim "Eco Friendly: Delivers exactly the amount of water you need, when you need it ..." might lack clarity but they considered each part of the statement to be separately relevant to the product. They said a Quooker contributed to a better use of natural resources, because it saved 480 litres of drinking water per household per year compared with other domestic equipment for boiling water. That amounted to an almost 30% reduction in the volume of tap water used for boiling in the kitchen. The said the product also had a lower life cycle energy requirement in comparison to an electric kettle, per litre of water boiled. They said, in terms of life cycle, it was true that the Quooker required more total energy per unit than a kettle but that was not the case per litre of water boiled. Quooker said the product was more environmentally friendly than other storage heaters for boiling or hot water due to the high-vacuum insulated stainless steel tank that saved energy, compared with conventional insulating materials, and minimised heat loss from the tank. They said no polyurethane or expanded polystyrene was required for insulation, which meant it was more recyclable. They submitted details of the product patent.
Quooker said they considered the product to be energy efficient and the EAR supported that claim. They said that in addition to the electric energy electric heaters required to bring a litre of water to the boil, there was a conversion (from fossil fuel to electricity) surcharge of 60%. They said a Quooker required energy to maintain the water temperature at 110 degrees centigrade but that was almost completely offset by the very low overfill losses, with the net result being that the energy performance of the product was comparable with that of an electric kettle. They said they accepted that the combination of "Energy Efficient: Energy use only 3p a day, a saving of up to 55% against a kettle" was misleading and therefore the “savings” claim was no longer being used. They believed, however, it was justified to describe the Quooker as being "Energy Efficient", because it performed on a par with, or better than, other ways of bringing water to the boil and had the additional benefit of instant boiling water.
3. Quooker provided copies of calculations that compared the energy consumption and cost of the Quooker with that of a kettle. They said the data relating to the kettle was taken from a 2006 Market Transformation Programme (MTP) Report on kettle type trends and energy consumption, and they provided a copy of that report. Quooker said the claim would be withdrawn from their advertising.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the "eco-friendly" claim to relate to the product's total environmental impact, taking into account the full life cycle of the product. We noted the EAR assessed the energy involved in the production, distribution, disposal and possible recycling of all the products, and that it stated that reliable data on the life cycle of some products was hard to come by. Notwithstanding that, we noted that on the analysis of life cycle alone, excluding the energy required to boil water in use, the Quooker required more energy than a conventional electric kettle, although it did use less energy than the other products tested. We also noted that the EAR did not take into account the life cycle of the Quooker water filters, which we understood needed to be replaced approximately every three years.
We noted the report went on to consider the overall energy efficiency of the Quooker and the comparable products, including the energy required for domestic water preparation. We noted the report concluded that the total energy efficiency of the Quooker was on a par with its electric alternatives, such as the electric kettle and microwave oven, and that only the gas-fired hob had a greater efficiency. We considered that the claim "Energy efficient", in the context of the following claim "Energy use only 3p a day, a saving of up to 55% against a kettle", would be understood by consumers to mean that the Quooker was more energy efficient than a kettle, but understood from the EAR that that was not the case.
We concluded that the claims that the Quooker was "Eco friendly" and "Energy efficient" had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On this 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. (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 11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. and 11.3 11.3 Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as "greener" or "friendlier" can be justified, for example, if the advertised product provides a total environmental benefit over that of the marketer's previous product or competitor products and the basis of the comparison is clear. (Environmental claims).
3. Upheld
We noted the calculations provided, but also noted that the values for the Quooker were based on boiling 200 ml of water whereas the values for the kettle were based on boiling 1 litre. We noted that the MTP Report was produced in 2006 and that we had not seen evidence that showed that the generic kettle types referred to in the report were representative of those currently on the market. We also noted that the basis on which the energy consumption data for the kettle types had been calculated was not made clear in the Report, for example the extent to which the figures were based on boiling cold water or reheating pre-boiled water. Notwithstanding the above, we noted that the MTP Report estimated the frequency of kettle use at 1542 times per year, or 4.22 times a day, but also noted that Quooker had based the savings claim on a calculation that estimated kettle use at eight times a day. We had not seen evidence that that was representative of average consumer use. We acknowledged that Quooker had withdrawn the claim, but considered that because the documentation provided was not sufficient to support the savings claim made in the ad, it was misleading.
On this 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. (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 again in its current form. We told Quooker not to claim that their product was eco friendly or energy efficient unless they held suitable evidence to support the claims. We also told them not to make comparative savings claims against kettles unless they held adequate substantiation for them.
