Ad description

A TV ad, seen on 19 September, for exercise machine Powerfit featured a woman running and a voice-over which stated, “PowerFit. This is Olivia. An active runner doing her usual 30-minute jog out in the park. Let’s check out the results”. An on-screen timer showed 30 minutes had passed and the woman, Olivia, stated, “I just ran for 30 minutes and it is hot outside. And I love to run but I’m a mess, I’m sweaty, my hair’s a mess, now it’s time to take a shower.” Olivia was then shown placing a calorie counter on her waist and using the PowerFit. A voice-over then stated, “…we asked her to step indoors and try PowerFit.” The same on-screen timer showed 10 minutes passing. Olivia then stated, “I couldn’t believe that I was only on there for 10 minutes when I looked down at my monitor and realised that’s how many calories I’d burned indoors I was completely shocked. And you feel like you have to keep control of every part of your body…by the end of your 10-minute session you’ve had a full body workout.” The voice-over then stated, “As you see with PowerFit you feel the results but with less impact to your joints.”

Issue

The complainant, who believed the ad implied that 10 minutes on the Powerfit was as or more effective at burning calories compared to a 30-minute run, challenged whether the ad was misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

Brand Developers Aust Pty Ltd t/a PowerFit said there was no comparison made between jogging and using the PowerFit, regarding the number of calories burnt. They stated that the ad featured a testimonial from a keen jogger (Olivia Figueroa). They provided copies of testimonial release forms from both Olivia and the producer, which they understood attested that Olivia’s comments represented her true and honest opinions. They did not believe the content of the testimonial amounted to a claim about calorie comparison. They said at no point did Olivia compare, or imply a comparison, between calories burned whilst jogging and calories burned on the PowerFit. They said calories were never mentioned in the introduction to the testimonial, and they were never mentioned by Olivia before, during, or when she completed her jog; she only remarked that she was hot, sweaty, her hair was a mess and she needed a shower. The said Olivia only mentioned calories once, and it was in clear reference to her surprise at how many calories she burned indoors in only 10 minutes; she did not say, or imply, whether they were more (or less) than jogging. Furthermore, she could not have said that she burned more calories than jogging since the segment clearly showed she did not count the calories when she was running.

Clearcast said the purpose of the sequence featuring Olivia was to counter the public perception that vibrating plate exercises did not deliver a full body workout. They said there were no references to the number of calories burned and there was no suggestion that a 10-minute workout on the Powerfit was greater than or equivalent to a 30-minutes jog in terms of calorie expenditure. They said Olivia was not shocked because she had expended a similar amount of calories compared with 30 minutes of jogging but because she had expended more calories than she was expecting after 10 minutes on the Powerfit. They said if any comparison was to be drawn then it was that 10 minutes on the Powerfit was the equivalent to a full body workout (not a 30-minute jog) for which the Clearcast consultant physiologist was satisfied was true.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the ad featured a woman running as the voice-over stated, “Let’s check out the results”. An on-screen timer showed 30 minutes had passed, and that was referenced in the voice-over and by the woman. That was then immediately contrasted with the woman using the Powerfit while wearing a calorie counter and referencing the number of calories burnt. The same on-screen timer showed 10 minutes passing and that 10-minute interval was referred to multiple times throughout the ad. While we noted the view that there was no explicit comparison made between jogging and using the PowerFit regarding calories burned, we considered the proximity between the woman running and using the PowerFit suggested they were comparable in some way. We further considered that the use of the timers and the calorie counter suggested they were measuring the comparison and contributed to the impression that the two workouts were comparable regarding calories burned. Further, we considered consumers would understand from the woman’s expressed surprise and by the statement “by the end of your 10-minute session you’ve had a full body workout” to mean she had lost the same amount of calories for each workout. We therefore considered consumers would understand that the ad in that context implied that using the PowerFit for 10 minutes was at least equivalent to running for 30 minutes in terms of calories burned.

We considered the advertiser needed to provide robust documentary evidence that demonstrated using the PowerFit for 10 minutes was at least equivalent to a 30-minute run in terms of calories burned. Because the advertiser did not provide substantiation that demonstrated that was the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:

a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;

b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;

c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;

d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;

e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;

f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];

g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"

Section  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.  2).
 (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 of. We told Powerfit to ensure they did not imply that 10 minutes on the Powerfit was as or more effective at burning calories compared to a 30-minute run.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.9    


More on