Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for Proteks, an exterior wall application, seen on 10 June 2021, featured images of the exterior of buildings showing the walls before and after having Proteks applied. Large text appeared on-screen towards the beginning of the ad that stated “Proteks 45 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE”. After describing the product, a voiceover stated, “Proteks customers have enjoyed its benefits for over 45 years and counting.” The text “Proteks 45 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE” was shown across the bottom of the screen for the duration of the ad, a roundel stating “45 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE” appeared on-screen part-way through, and the ad ended with the claim “Proteks 45 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE It’s not just paint, it’s Proteks” in large on-screen text.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the:
1. claims “Proteks 45 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE” and “Proteks customers have enjoyed its benefits for over 45 years and counting” misleadingly implied that Advanced Wall Solutions had been in business for 45 years; and
2. photographs of properties misleadingly implied that the work had been undertaken by Advanced Wall Solutions.
Response
1. Advanced Wall Solutions Ltd t/a Proteks said they used the claim “45 years” in the ad to communicate that the Proteks product had a commercial history of 45 years. In their opinion, the claims “Proteks customers have enjoyed its benefits for over 45 years and counting” and “It’s not just paint, it’s Proteks” would be understood by consumers as being a clear reference to the Proteks product, and not the company.
They supplied letters from Everlac GB Ltd, the manufacturer of the exterior wall application, which stated that the same grade of coating product previously supplied to Scottford Ltd would be supplied to Advanced Wall Solutions and that it would be sold and marketed by them.
They also supplied an email from an individual who had worked as the Managing Director at Everlac at the time the product was supplied to Scottford and Advanced Wall Solutions, explaining the trading history of the product. Everlac stated that they had agreed to supply Advanced Wall Solutions with the same product, under the new name ‘Proteks’, that they had previously supplied Scottford. They also stated that, prior to Everlac supplying the product to Scottford, the same product, marketed under the name ‘Kenitex’, was supplied to Scottford by the Imperial Paint Company. Everlac transitioned from the Imperial Paint Company in 1980. They said that the Imperial Paint Company started manufacturing Kenitex in the UK from the early 1970s.
Advanced Wall Solutions supplied a brochure for Kenitex, which stated it had been used since 1963.
Clearcast said they received confirmation from Advanced Wall Solutions that Proteks had been used since 1975. They said the ad only featured the product Proteks, and not the company Advanced Wall Solutions, so it was clear the claims related to the product and not the company itself.
2. To substantiate that Advanced Wall Solutions had carried out the work on the properties shown in the ad, they provided the postcode and name on the warranty for each property.
Clearcast said they told the advertiser to ensure that any visual representations of a product or service were genuine.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ad repeatedly referenced “Proteks”, which was both the trading name used by Advanced Wall Solution and the name of the exterior wall application, in the voiceover and in on-screen text. This included displaying the Proteks logo and the website address www.proteks.co.uk at the bottom of the screen throughout the ad. The ASA considered, in that context, consumers would understand that the ad was for a company called Proteks that delivered a service of applying an exterior wall application to properties, rather than specifically for a product called Proteks. We therefore considered consumers would understand the claims “Proteks 45 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE” and “Proteks customers have enjoyed its benefits for over 45 years and counting” to mean that the company Proteks had been trading for the past 45 years. We therefore expected to see evidence that Proteks, the name under which Advanced Wall Solutions was trading, had a trading history dating back to at least 1976.
We understood that Advanced Wall Solutions had been trading as Proteks since 2010. We also understood that Proteks was the same product and service previously supplied by Scottford Ltd. If a company that had taken over the marketing of a product claimed a trading history that included the time that their predecessor had marketed it, we considered that the new company needed to be able to demonstrate that they had taken over the debts and liabilities, as well as the trading heritage, of the previous company. Because Proteks had not supplied documentation that demonstrated that they had also taken on the debts and liabilities of the previous company, we concluded that the claims “45 years of excellence” and “Proteks customers have enjoyed its benefits for over 45 years and counting” had not been substantiated and that the ad was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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).
2. Upheld
We considered viewers would expect that the photographs of properties showed work that had been undertaken by the advertiser. We therefore expected to see evidence that Advanced Wall Solutions had carried out the work on the properties shown in the ad. We had been provided with the postcode and name of person on the warranty for each of the properties. However, we did not consider that this demonstrated that Advanced Wall Solutions had carried out the work.
Because the information provided was not sufficient to substantiate that Advanced Wall Solutions had carried out the work in the photographs of the properties shown, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Advanced Wall Solutions Ltd t/a Proteks not to make claims about the length of their trading history unless they held adequate evidence. If their claim referred to the trading history of another company, we told them to ensure they could demonstrate that they had taken on the debts and liabilities of that company. We also told them to ensure that the photographs of properties shown in their ads were of properties on which Advanced Wall Solutions had carried out work.
