Ad description
A brochure ad for Anglian Windows was headed "Get fit for winter with up to £3000 towards thermally efficient windows". The ad showed two thermal images of a house, one headed "HEAT LOSS BEFORE SCRAPPAGE UPGRADE" and the other headed "HEAT LOSS AFTER SCRAPPAGE UPGRADE". Text stated "The thermal images above show a typical semi-detached house before and after being fitted with our energy saving windows. The intense red areas show serious heat loss. In the 'after' image you clearly see that once Anglian windows have been installed the red areas have reduced, showing vastly improved heat retention".
Issue
LEAD: Linking Energy-efficiency Advice and Detection challenged whether the reductions in heat loss that the images suggested were misleading and exaggerated.
Response
Anglian Windows Ltd said the images were taken from a report conducted by an independent surveyor who had taken into account factors such as the orientation of the property and the windows. They supplied a copy of the report. Anglian Windows said additional information about the readings obtained and the colour samples was not included in the ad, but was contained in the report and was available via their website for readers who wished to see it.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted that the images had been supplied as part of a report undertaken by a thermographer who had compared the amount of heat escaping from single glazed, wooden windows and Anglian Windows B-rated casement windows, and who we understood had found a reduction in the amount of heat that escaped through the B-rated windows. We noted that the ad was headed "Get fit for winter with up to £3000 towards thermally efficient windows" and that the text referred to "a typical semi-detached house before and after being fitted with our energy saving windows", "If your windows are heating the street like this" and "old inefficient windows", all of which we considered came across as general comparisons between "old" and new, efficient windows from Anglian Windows, rather than specific comparisons which might have suggested that the images were making a claim about the magnitude of the effect that could be achieved. In that context, we considered readers would be unlikely to interpret the images as relating to a particular amount or scale of improvement. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.
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) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
