Ad description

A leaflet for Total Excellium fuel which was obtained from a petrol station forecourt on 4 April 2011 and the Channel Islands website for Total UK Ltd, which was visited on 5 April 2011:

(a) The leaflet stated "NEW FORMULA TOTAL excellium... Reduced fuel consumption - YES, LOWER CO2 emissions - YES";

(b) Text under the heading "More miles from every tank" stated "TOTAL EXCELLIUM increases fuel economy by an average of 4% - that's as much as 30 extra miles from every tank compared to our standard fuels and 14 extra miles on average". Under the heading "More peace of mind for the environment" the website stated "The tests proved that TOTAL EXCELLIUM ... reduces pollutants like carbon monoxide and black smoke by up to 25%*".

Issue

One complainant challenged whether the following claims could be substantiated and were misleading:

1. "Reduced fuel consumption - YES" and "LOWER CO2 emissions - YES" in ad (a);

2. "TOTAL EXCELLIUM increases fuel economy by an average of 4%" in ad (b); and

3. "It also reduces pollutants like carbon monoxide and black smoke by up to 25%*" in ad (b).

Response

Total UK Ltd (Total) stated that, although they did not believe the leaflet or website was misleading, the complaint had alerted them to the fact that some information on their Channel Islands website and in their point of sale materials was out of date and inconsistent with their brand positioning. They confirmed that information had now been updated.

1. Total said their Excellium fuels contained a detergent that reduced the build up of harmful deposits in the fuel system, which in turn improved performance and fuel economy. They said the fuel also contained components that reduced mechanical losses caused by friction, which directly improved fuel economy. They said tests had been done on a dynamometer (or "rolling road"), on a private circuit and on public roads and that further tests had been conducted by their fleet customers.

Total explained that they had conducted tests on a dynamometer at their own research facilities using over 40 different vehicles. They said they had used the European NMVEG test cycle and that UTAC, an independent test body, had replicated the tests using one petrol and one diesel vehicle. They provided the data from the UTAC tests and stated that the results, which they believed demonstrated a qualitative reduction in fuel consumption, were consistent with their own results.

They stated that 14 vehicles had been test driven at speeds of 70 and then 75 km/h on a private circuit. They stated that the 70 km/h test was validated by a public notary and that the 75 km/h test was validated by the RWTUV (German technical monitoring society). They stated that Excellium Diesel had been tested by three fleet customers on public roads. They said the first two of those fleet tests had involved 752 and 577 vehicles respectively and that the most recent (conducted in 2010), which had been subject to a statistical analysis carried out by an independent company, involved a fleet of 30,000 vehicles. They provided a copy of the statistical analysis and stated that they believed each of the circuit and fleet tests showed vehicles using Excellium fuels had achieved an average improvement in fuel consumption.

2. Total stated that they consistently found dynamometer testing produced lower consumption improvement figures than circuit or road testing. They believed it was the latter that most closely replicated 'real world' conditions and that those were therefore used to substantiate their quantitative claims for Excellium fuels. They said the results of their circuit tests showed a range of fuel consumption improvements, with some tests demonstrating an improvement greater than the 4% claimed in the ad. They said the first two fleet tests, and the statistical analysis of the third fleet test as it related to vehicles that had averaged less than 50 kilometres a day, demonstrated an average improvement in fuel consumption that supported the claim.

3. Total said emissions were taken over four cycles during their own dynamometer tests and that the results showed the average reduction in carbon monoxide emissions for diesel vehicles was 15%, with some results showing a reduction of more than 30%.

Assessment

The ASA considered that, because the ads did not specifically refer to petrol or diesel engine vehicles, most consumers who collected a leaflet or visited the website would expect the claims to relate to the performance of Excellium fuels when used in petrol or diesel passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. We took expert advice on the data provided by Total, which related only to those categories of vehicles.

1. Not upheld

We noted that the dynamometer test data we received had been produced in a recognised and respected independent test laboratory. We noted that both a petrol and a diesel vehicle had been tested and that for each the fuel consumption was improved by the use of Total Excellium. Although we had seen data for only those vehicles tested by UTAC, we understood that similar efficiency savings had been recorded by Total during their own testing.

We noted that Total had conducted two sets of independently witnessed steady speed circuit tests and we understood that sufficient care had been taken to make the results of those tests suitably repeatable and reliable. We noted that in both sets of tests there was a qualitative reduction in fuel consumption for both diesel and petrol vehicles.

We noted that Total had conducted three fleet trials, all of which demonstrated a reduction in fuel consumption. We noted that a statistical analysis of the results of one of those trials had been conducted by a respected high-tech consultancy. We understood the observations in the analysis, particularly regarding the impact of vehicle age and the rate of mileage accumulation on vehicle fuel consumption, were consistent with industry accepted experience and we therefore considered that the results observed were more rather than less likely to be reliable. Although we considered testing carried out on the road with untrained drivers introduced many variables that made the results less significant than dynamometer and controlled track testing, we noted the report concluded that Total Excellium achieved a reduction in fuel consumption.

We understood that a vehicle's fuel consumption was calculated from its exhaust emissions and that the method of calculation assumed that the amount of carbon that entered the engine as fuel was the same as the amount of carbon that exited as exhaust gases. We understood that it was therefore reasonable to assume that a reduction in fuel consumption would also lead to a similar reduction in CO2 emissions.

We considered that the dynamometer, circuit and fleet tests constituted a sufficiently reproducible and robust body of evidence to support the claim that Total Excellium reduced fuel consumption. Because of that, and because we considered that evidence for reduced fuel consumption was equally evidence for a reduction in CO2 emissions, we concluded that the claims "Reduced fuel consumption - YES" and "LOWER CO2 emissions - YES" in ad (a) had been substantiated and were not misleading.

On this point we investigated the claims in ad (a) 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),  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.  (Environmental claims) but did not find them in breach.

2. Upheld

We understood that the fuel consumption of a vehicle was calculated from its exhaust emissions as set out in EU directives. Those directives required a vehicle to be driven over a prescribed test cycle on a dynamometer, with the emissions from the exhaust pipe measured using a closely prescribed protocol. We understood that whilst at one time the fuel consumption of new cars was quoted over the "urban drive cycle" and at steady speeds of 90 and 120 km/h, the steady speed tests had been superseded because they were not considered to be a realistic representation of normal driving. They were replaced by the "extra urban drive cycle", which was performed at higher speed than the "urban drive cycle" but which still involved driving at variable speeds, and we understood that the results of the "urban" and "extra urban" drive cycles, together with a weighted average of the two, constituted the officially recognised fuel consumption figures. We did not therefore accept Total's argument that the dynamometer tests were less significant than the other test methods for assessing likely 'real world' fuel consumption improvements.

We noted that Total recognised that the dynamometer test data did not support the claim that Excellium improved fuel economy by 4%. We understood there was a question over the relevance of steady speed testing for day to day driving and we noted that the fuel consumption figures from the steady speed testing were referred to as the "positive average", which we understood was the average of only those results that achieved a significant improvement. Although we noted that the positive average showed improvements that were broadly in line with the claimed 4%, we considered those results were not appropriate substantiation because results for vehicles that showed no improvement (or an increase in fuel consumption) were not factored in. We noted that the fleet trial for which the statistical analysis had been conducted had involved an extremely large group of vehicles and that it had shown an average improvement in fuel consumption. However, we noted that the fleet trial involved only diesel vehicles and that the average improvement, even for vehicles travelling short journeys, did not reach 4%. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, we considered the results were less significant than those from tests conducted in a controlled setting.

We considered that the evidence provided did not support the claim that "TOTAL EXCELLIUM increases fuel economy by an average of 4%" and we therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point the claim in ad (b) 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.  (Environmental claims).

3. Upheld

We noted from the UTAC dynamometer data that Excellium appeared to have a significant impact on the level of carbon monoxide emissions and that the diesel vehicle tested had achieved a reduction in excess of the claimed 25%. However, we noted that the reduction achieved by the petrol vehicle fell below that level and we noted that the website had not stated that the quoted figure related specifically to diesel vehicles. We considered that, in the absence of information to the contrary, consumers would expect emissions savings claims which appeared to refer to both petrol and diesel fuels to have been achieved by vehicles that used each type of fuel. Because the evidence did not support the claim as it related to Total's Excellium petrol, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On this point the claim in ad (b) 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.  (Environmental claims).

Action

The fuel economy and emissions claims in ad (b) must not appear again in their current form. We told Total not to make claims about the fuel economy and emissions savings of Excellium fuels that went beyond the results of their testing.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

11.1     3.1     3.11     3.7    


More on