Background
Summary of Council decision:
Nine issues were investigated, of which eight were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
The CAP Code requires marketers to hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation before those claims are made (rule 3.7). Evidence which becomes available after that time cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with rule 3.7. However, it is possible that such evidence may lead the ASA to conclude that CAP Code rule 3.1, which prohibits marketing communications that materially mislead or are likely to do so, has not been breached.
The ASA has full discretion to consider evidence post-dating a claim if it is reasonable to do so. In assessing what is reasonable, we will look to a number of factors, which might include the nature of the claims, the extent to which the advertiser has had an opportunity to respond to points put to it by the complainant and/or the ASA, the time at which the evidence is obtained and submitted, and its potential significance.
As well as the information included with their initial response to the complaint (which was held before the claims were made), during the course of this investigation Grey Technology Ltd t/a Gtech (Gtech) submitted two sets of evidence to the ASA, some of which they had not held at the time the claims were made. The ASA decided that it was proportionate and necessary to assess the first set of additional evidence post-dating the claims, but that it was not fair to consumers, competitors or the proper administration of the self-regulatory system to accept the second set, submitted significantly later, or any other data that might subsequently become available. The report below acknowledges that some evidence received by the ASA was not considered admissible.
Ad description
Claims on www.gtechonline.co.uk/airram, seen in June 2012, for cordless vacuum cleaners, stated in a moving box "Forget Expensive Running Costs. Incredible energy efficiency, saving up to £252 over 5 years ... ". Text alongside the box stated "The Gtech AirRam vacuum cleaner heralds a revolution in floor cleaning - a new design of upright vacuum cleaner with a cleaning performance to match leading mains vacuums ... It carries 1/20th of the running costs of mains-powered vacuums ...".
Text on a page headed "How It Works" stated "... AirRam technology compresses the dirt into tidy bales which you just drop into the bin ... The motor powers the brush bars that lift dirt from the floors - works equally well on hard floors and carpets ... Because the dirt is compressed the whole machine is less bulky, and because the bin is located next to the brush bars, less power is required to move the dirt from the floor which is why the Gtech AirRam vacuum cleaner is the most energy efficient vacuum cleaner available. Size can be deceptive. The Gtech AirRam holds the same amount of dirt as a leading bagless vacuum cleaner ...". Under a sub-heading "Enduring High Performance" text stated "In standard battery powered cleaners performance decreases gradually with charge. With Gtech's Fuel system and professional grade Lithium-ion technology however, you are ensured constant high performance right up until the lithium cell is fully depleted ...". A video on this page demonstrated how the product worked and a voice-over stated, "... Forward inertia drive and 28 degree steering make the Gtech AirRam incredibly manoeuvrable ..."
Text on a page headed "Why Choose AirRam?" stated "... With the bin so close to the brush bars, the AirRam can provide superior performance to leading vacuum cleaners ... The Gtech AirRam is over 20 times more energy efficient than some leading mains powered vacuum cleaners".
Text on a page headed "FAQ's" stated "The performance of cordless vacuums suffers, doesn't it? No, independent laboratory tests have shown the AirRam outperforms leading and cordless vacuums. Where does the dirt go? The dirt is collected and compressed into small bales which you just drop into the bin. This compression technology gives the AirRam the equivalent dirt capacity to other bagless vacuums ... What about cleaning the edges of the room? The Gtech AirRam has excellent edge cleaning on both sides which ensures cleaning flush to the edges of your room".
Issue
Dyson Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "AirRam technology compresses the dirt into tidy bales";
2. "works equally well on hard floors and carpets";
3. the performance claims for the product, in particular "Enduring high performance" and "you are ensured constant high performance right up until the lithium cell is fully depleted";
4. "the most energy efficient vacuum cleaner available" and "over 20 times more energy efficient than some leading mains powered vacuum cleaners";
5. "It carries 1/20th of the running costs of mains-powered vacuums" and "saving up to £252 over 5 years";
6. the comparative claims, in particular "cleaning performance to match leading mains vacuums", "can provide superior performance to leading vacuum cleaners" and "outperforms leading and cordless vacuums";
7. "This compression technology gives the AirRam the equivalent dirt capacity to other bagless vacuums";
8. "The Gtech AirRam has excellent edge cleaning on both sides which ensures cleaning flush to the edges of your room"; and
9. "Forward inertia drive and 28 degree steering make the Gtech AirRam incredibly manoeuvrable".
Response
1. Gtech said the AirRam collected dirt in a receptacle just behind the brush bar. They explained that the airflow created from the vacuum fan passed through the collection receptacle and the action of the airflow passing through the receptacle compressed the collected dirt into small bales. They said that due to its patented full width collection duct, the AirRam compacted dirt across the full width of the collection bin. They explained that as the bales gathered density, a high proportion of the fine dust was held within the layers, thereby reducing the airborne dust on emptying. They said that the more slowly the dirt was gathered, the greater the compression effect and therefore normal use provided even better results than laboratory tests. They provided a series of photographs showing the bales achieved from household use.
Gtech explained that there was no IEC standard test to measure dirt compression, but they had carried out their own testing. They provided a copy of the test report, which had considered the ability of the AirRam and two competitor products to compress dirt by measuring the amount of the material "kapok" needed to fill each product's main bin and, where applicable, fine dust bin, relative to their respective bin capacities. Gtech said kapok was a suitable material to use for the test because it was IEC recognised, graded, consistent and compressible.
2. Gtech said the statement had been taken out of context. They said the AirRam's performance on hard floors was not equal to carpets. They explained that the claim had been made following performance tests which, they believed, showed that the AirRam worked equally as well as mains powered vacuums on hard floors and carpets. Gtech stated that a reasonable consumer would not expect any vacuum cleaner to have identical pick-up performance results on a carpet and a hard surface, and that it was not their intention to give that impression. They believed that a reasonable consumer would interpret the claim to mean that the product would perform as well as, or better than, competitor products on both carpets and hard floors. They referred to online customer testimonials which they believed showed their interpretation to be correct.
Gtech provided a copy of their test reports, which had been conducted on the AirRam and competitor products in accordance with IEC test standards for "Dust removal from carpets", "Dust removal from hard flat floors" and, for the AirRam, "Dust removal from hard floors with crevices". Gtech stated, however, that the last of those tests, which used a test surface with a 10 mm deep crevice, was not of any relevance, because their claim referred to carpets and hard floors and did not make any mention of cleaning deep crevices. They understood that crevices in hard floors were not generally 10 mm deep. They considered that the meaning of "hard floors" would be clear to consumers.
Gtech said they had since changed the claim to "works well on both hard floors and carpets".
3. Gtech explained that the claims "enduring high performance" and "you are ensured constant high performance right up until the lithium cell is fully depleted" were based on the fact that the AirRam was powered by Professional grade lithium-ion batteries, as opposed to NiMH batteries. They said that because lithium-ion batteries had double the life of standard batteries, they felt the claims were acceptable. They provided a copy of an online article about batteries.
Gtech believed the claims "enduring high performance" and "constant high performance" would be interpreted differently by consumers. They believed "constant high performance" implied that there would be no loss of performance as the battery depleted and the bin filled with dust, whereas they believed "enduring high performance" implied the AirRam's performance was high across a wide variety of conditions and time.
Gtech also provided copies of two reports, which they believed substantiated the claims. They said the first of those showed that the reduction in pick-up performance when the product had a depleted battery and a loaded receptacle, compared to when it had a fully-charged battery, was only 8.2%, even though there was a more significant reduction in suction power. They believed their test demonstrated that the product still performed well on a depleted battery and when the receptacle was loaded with dust, even though the suction power was significantly reduced.
The other test was a field test which measured the pick-up performance of 10 AirRam vacuums and one Dyson DC40 Multi Floor vacuum in real user environments. Gtech maintained that the results showed that, after one month's use of the product in real user environments, pick-up performance of the product reduced on average by only 4.9%, despite a drop in its airflow performance and suction power. They believed this showed that in real user environments, the AirRam had enduring pick-up performance.
4. Gtech maintained that AirRam's dirt collection technology made the product highly energy efficient, as it used only 100 watts of electricity, as opposed to mains powered vacuum cleaners, some of which used approximately 2000 watts of electricity. They said that from the initial research they conducted, the AirRam was by far the most energy efficient vacuum cleaner on the market. However, having taken legal advice on this point, they had realised that the possibility of being able to quantify the statement with 100 per cent accuracy would be practically impossible. They said they had changed the claim to "this unique dirt capture process makes the AirRam highly energy efficient".
Gtech provided a table comparing the AirRam's energy efficiency to certain mains powered vacuum cleaners. They explained that they had calculated energy efficiency using cleaning performance and input energy used. The table showed the energy efficiency of the AirRam compared to a range of leading vacuum cleaners. They believed the data supported the claim "over 20 times more energy efficient than some leading mains powered vacuums".
5. Gtech provided their calculations for the claim "It carries 1/20th of the running costs of mains-powered vacuums". They stated that, using those calculations, any vacuum cleaner having an input power greater than 1836 watts would have a running cost of 20 times that of the AirRam. Gtech said there were a number of mains-powered vacuum cleaners on the market which had an input power greater than 1836 watts and provided some examples. However, they stated that based on the advice of their lawyers they had changed the wording of the claim to "It carries 1/20th of the running costs of some mains-powered vacuums".
In relation to the claim "saving up to £252 over 5 years", Gtech explained that the claim was originally developed using the tariff of one of the leading energy suppliers. However, because the tariff was subject to fluctuations, they had approached the Energy Saving Trust which had provided them with an average electricity cost figure. That figure had now been incorporated into their calculations, a copy of which had been provided. They explained that, using the Energy Saving Trust figure, the savings figure was £202.50. They had therefore amended the claim to "saving up to £200 over 5 years".
They provided a copy of their calculation and explained that they had based it on 20 minutes of usage per day. They provided a copy of a report produced by a market research company on household cleaning which stated that 16% of respondents to a questionnaire claimed to vacuum once a day or more. They had therefore based their calculation on 20-minutes' use of the AirRam per day as they believed this was representative of normal use.
6. Gtech explained that the AirRam's cleaning performance had been independently certified through IEC standardised testing on both carpets and hard floors. They said the test results showed that the AirRam's cleaning performance on both surfaces was at least equally as good as mains-powered vacuum cleaners and outperformed some of their competitors' leading products. They stated that, compared to the leading cordless vacuums on the market, the cleaning performance of the AirRam was far superior. Gtech provided copies of the IEC test reports as noted at point 2 above, as well as a second set obtained during the course of the investigation which had been conducted on a wider range of competitor products.
Gtech said they had removed the parts of the claims referring to "leading" vacuum cleaners and "superior" cleaning performance, but considered that it was acceptable to claim that the AirRam "matched mains vacuum performance".
7. Gtech explained that the website also contained the claim "The Gtech AirRam holds the same amount of dirt as a leading bagless vacuum cleaner". They maintained the AirRam held the same amount of dirt as the Dyson D24. They provided the results of a test which measured the maximum amount of dirt the AirRam held compared with three other vacuum cleaners.
8. Gtech said that vacuum cleaners that had a brush bar usually had a 'blind spot' where the brush-bar drive system was located. They said less dirt was picked up in that area. They explained that the AirRam brush-bar system was in the centre of the product, unlike most leading vacuum cleaners which had a belt drive system located at one side of the vacuum. They said the AirRam's centre drive system enabled the brush-bar bristles to go all the way to the edge of the product, which enabled the AirRam to clean right up to the edge of the product. They submitted a test report which they said substantiated the claim.
9. Gtech explained that the AirRam's brush bar was turned mechanically by the motor drive system when the product was switched on. The bristles on the brush bar made contact with the floor's surface, acting like a powered wheel and moving the AirRam forward, thereby reducing the required push force. Gtech had termed this action 'forward inertia drive'. They provided a test report in relation to the "forward inertia drive" claim.
They said "28 degree steering" was the angle of the steering interface to the handle. They explained that the AirRam's handle was joined to the base via a double-pivoting joint. One pivot was the main hinge which allowed the vacuum to park upright and tilt backwards in use. The second was an angled joint which they identified in an accompanying diagram. They said the action of the angled joints was such that by twisting the handle, the head steered from side to side. They believed that 28 degrees was the optimal angle; a smaller angle would mean the head of the vacuum would only steer a small amount and a larger angle would mean the head of the vacuum would steer too much and would be hard work on the wrist and difficult to control. They said they had carefully engineered the angles so that on an average cleaning stroke (approximately 70 cm) a comfortable turn of the wrist steered exactly half the width of the cleaning head. Therefore on each forward and back stroke the AirRam moved its head-width to the side and so easily and efficiently covered the floor area.
They said these elements, along with the fact the AirRam was cordless and weighed only 3.35 kg, made it extremely manoeuvrable. Gtech provided photographs showing the product in use and two diagrams illustrating the steering angle. They also provided a sample product.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered the photographs and test report provided by Gtech. We noted that the photographs showed that the dirt had been grouped together to form tidy bales. We also noted that the product's dirt receptacle was shaped into two square holders, which formed the shape of the bales. We considered, however, that the photographs did not demonstrate that the dirt had been compressed by the AirRam.
The test report submitted post-dated the complaint and therefore the data had not been available when the claim was published. On that basis, we concluded that Gtech had not held substantiation for the claim "AirRam technology compresses the dirt into tidy bales" at the time of publication and that it therefore breached the Code.
We understood that there was no IEC standard to measure dirt compression in vacuum cleaners and sought expert advice on the compression testing conducted by Gtech, including on the suitability of kapok as a test material. We understood that kapok was a soft, natural fibre from the kapok tree. We noted that it had in the past been specified in the IEC standards as a substitute for fibrous material found in homes, but that it was found that, although acceptable on most machines, it reacted unfairly with some cyclones. It was no longer specified in the standards.
We considered that the results shown in the test report for the two competitor products, which operated on a cyclone system, should be discounted because it was known that kapok did not react well in certain cyclone configurations. However, we regarded kapok as a suitable material for testing compression on the part of the AirRam, which was not a cyclone system, and considered that the results showed some compression achieved from use of that product. We considered that, together with the photographs of bales resulting from in-home use submitted by Gtech, the test report was sufficient to demonstrate that the AirRam compressed dirt. We therefore concluded that, although the claim "AirRam technology compresses the dirt into tidy bales" had not been adequately substantiated with evidence held at the time it was published, it was supported by data which had become available at a later date and was on that basis unlikely to mislead.
On that point, the claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 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).
We also investigated the claim 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.
2. Upheld
We understood that Gtech had intended the claim to mean that the AirRam performed as well as other vacuums on carpets and hard floors. We noted the online consumer testimonials, but considered they did not show that the average consumer would interpret the claim in the way intended by Gtech. Irrespective of whether they knew that vacuum cleaners generally performed less well on hard floors than on carpets, we considered consumers would interpret the claim "works equally well on hard floors and carpets" to mean that the AirRam's pick-up performance was the same on both surfaces.
We considered the test reports supplied by Gtech. We noted their comments on the relevance of the "Dust removal from hard floors with crevices" test and sought expert advice on that point. We noted that, as with the other IEC standards, it was not compulsory for any company to test their product in accordance with that standard. However, we considered that claims related to "hard floor" cleaning should be supported by results from tests for both types of hard floor unless the ad made clear that performance claims related only to hard flat floors or to hard floors with crevices. We considered that the results of the "Hard floor with crevices" test submitted by Gtech should be taken into account when considering the performance of the AirRam on hard floors.
As described above, we considered that consumers would understand the claim "works equally well on hard floors and carpets" to mean that the AirRam would achieve the same degree of pick-up performance on hard floors as it did on carpets. We considered the results of all three tests conducted on the AirRam and noted that that was not the case. We therefore concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the claim 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) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
We understood that Gtech had based the claims "Enduring high performance" and "you are ensured constant high performance right up until the lithium cell is fully depleted" on the fact that the AirRam was powered by Professional grade lithium-ion batteries, as opposed to NiMH batteries which had a shorter life. We considered that the claims implied that the cleaning performance of the AirRam did not diminish as the receptacle filled with dust and as the battery depleted. We disagreed with Gtech's argument that "Enduring high performance" would be interpreted to mean performance was high across a wide variety of conditions and time. However, we considered that even if the claim was interpreted in that way, a field trial of only one month's duration was insufficient to show that the product had "Enduring high performance".
We noted that the test reports provided, post-dated the claims and the data had not been available when the claims were published. We concluded that Gtech had not held substantiation for the claims "Enduring high performance" and "you are ensured constant high performance right up until the lithium cell is fully depleted" at the time of publication and that they therefore breached the Code.
One of the tests, although not independently verified, was carried out in accordance with the IEC Standard 60312 clause 2.9 which measured the performance of a vacuum cleaner with a loaded dust receptacle. We understood that Gtech had carried out this test with a depleted battery (in accordance with the IEC standard) and compared the results to the IEC test, measuring dust removal from carpets with an empty receptacle and fully charged battery. We noted that there was a reduction of eight percentage points, or 14%, in pick-up performance between a test condition of a full battery and empty receptacle and one where the AirRam's battery was depleted and the dust receptacle was loaded. We considered that this indicated that the cleaning performance of the AirRam did diminish as the receptacle filled with dust and as the battery depleted.
The other test, the one-month field trial, had been conducted by Gtech, was not independently verified and had not been carried out under controlled conditions. We understood that ten consumers had each been given an AirRam and that one consumer had been given a Dyson DC40 Multi Floor to use in their own homes over a month-long period, and that pick-up performance had been measured by Gtech before and after the period. We considered that a fair comparison could not be made by comparing only one Dyson with ten AirRams. We noted that users were asked to use the products in the normal way, but not to clean the filters. No other instructions were given and this could have led to undocumented variations in usage. Most significantly, we considered that the claims "Enduring high performance" and "you are ensured constant high performance right up until the lithium cell is fully depleted" would be interpreted by the average consumer to mean that performance would remain high regardless of how much charge the battery had and we considered that the field test had not measured that.
For those reasons, we concluded that the claims were misleading.
On this point, the claims 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) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
4. Upheld
We understood that Gtech had removed the claim "the most energy efficient vacuum cleaner available" on the advice of their lawyers due to difficulties in substantiating the claim. We considered the table provided and noted that it showed the energy efficiency of the AirRam compared to only seven competitor products. We considered that to substantiate the claim Gtech would have to provide evidence to show that their product was the most energy efficient vacuum cleaner on the market. Because they had not provided such evidence, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
In relation to the claim "over 20 times more energy efficient than some leading mains powered vacuums", we considered the table provided by Gtech. We noted that they had calculated energy efficiency by dividing the average percentage dust pick-up performance figure for the AirRam (measured using the IEC standard 60312 section 5.3 "Dust Removal from Carpets") by the vacuum's energy input (in watts). We understood that Gtech had factored in the electricity used to charge the AirRam when arriving at their efficiency figure.
We understood that the AirRam used 100 watts of electricity, whereas the other seven vacuum cleaners in the comparison used between 144 and 2000 watts. We noted that three out of the seven vacuums used in the comparison were cordless rather than mains powered vacuums so were not relevant to the claim.
In any event, we noted that, according to the calculation used, the AirRam was over 20 times more energy efficient than only one vacuum cleaner out of the seven tested, and that that was the only vacuum which used 2000 watts of electricity. We noted that the claim referred to "some leadings mains powered vacuums" whereas the data provided showed that the AirRam was over 20 times more energy efficient than only one mains powered vacuum. We concluded therefore that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the claims 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).
5. Upheld
We noted that the claims, as originally worded, were "It carries 1/20th of the running costs of mains-powered vacuums" and "saving up to £252 over 5 years". Because we had not seen evidence to show that the AirRam carried 1/20th of the running costs of all mains powered vacuums and that consumers would save up to £252 over 5 years, we considered that the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
We noted that the claims had been amended to read "It carries 1/20th of the running costs of some mains-powered vacuums" and "saving up to £200 over 5 years". We considered the calculations provided by Gtech. We noted that the claims were based on a comparison with mains powered vacuums which used 2400 watts of energy and the savings claim was based on 20-minutes' usage per day over the five-year period. We noted that Gtech had identified two competitor vacuum cleaners which ran on 2400 watts of electricity.
We considered that, although the calculations were correct, the claims were misleading and had not been substantiated because they did not explain the basis on which the comparison was made; in particular, that the AirRam had been compared with mains powered vacuums which ran on 2400 watts of energy, and that the savings claim was based on 20-minutes’ usage per day over five years. We also had concerns that the figure may have been over-stated because, according to the market research report, the majority of respondents vacuumed for less than 20 minutes per day. For example, 30% of respondents said they vacuumed two to three times per week and 28% said they vacuumed once a week. We noted that Gtech had based their figure on 2.33 hours of usage per week and, in light of the market research report, considered that this was probably an over-estimation.
For those reasons, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, the claims 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) 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).
6. Upheld
We noted that Gtech had submitted two sets of IEC test reports. However, the second set related to tests conducted well after the publication of the claims under investigation. We considered it unreasonable to accept that as evidence.
The first round of testing had been carried out before the comparative claims were made and related to a small selection of vacuum cleaners on the market. On that occasion, Gtech had tested 11 competitor vacuum cleaners for dust removal from carpet and three competitor vacuums for dust removal from hard floors. However, that round of testing had not included the "Dust removal from hard floors with crevices" test. We considered that that test was a relevant indicator of pick-up performance in the context of general performance claims which did not specify a cleaning surface, and therefore that, in order to substantiate the claims, Grey needed to demonstrate the AirRam's performance on hard floors with crevices in comparison to that of competitor vacuum cleaners. We noted that, at the time the claims were published, they had performed that test on the AirRam and three other vacuums cleaners.
The first set of IEC test reports provided showed that in terms of dust removal from carpet, the AirRam was out-performed by three other vacuum cleaners, but that it performed better on hard flat floors than the three competitor products tested. On hard floors with crevices, the AirRam was out-performed by two of the three competitor products. We noted that the sample size in each test was small and Gtech had not explained why they had chosen those particular makes and models of vacuum cleaners or shown that they were the leading vacuum cleaners on the market. We noted that Gtech had subsequently removed the words "leading", in relation to the market comparison, and "superior", in relation to cleaning performance. However, we remained concerned that the evidence assessed was not such that it would support general comparative claims.
Because of the samples used, we concluded that the claims "cleaning performance to match leading mains vacuums", "can provide superior performance to leading vacuum cleaners" and "outperforms leading cordless vacuums" had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, the claims 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).
7. Upheld
We understood that Gtech had carried out their own testing to compare the AirRam's dust bin capacity compared with those of three competitor vacuum cleaners. They had used 6-mm diameter plastic balls to fill up the dust bin (and fine dust centre tube, where applicable) to either its maximum fill line or until the normal in-use full condition, and then emptied the contents into a measuring cylinder to measure the volume. We noted that the results showed that two of the three competitor vacuums tested had a greater bin capacity than the AirRam. One of the vacuums held an additional 50 ml to the AirRam and one held an additional 450 ml. We considered that the results were insufficient to show that the AirRam had an equivalent dirt capacity to other bagless vacuums, as this was an unqualified claim and implied that the AirRam had the equivalent dirt capacity to all other bagless vacuums, which was not the case. On that basis, we concluded that the claim "This compression technology gives the AirRam the equivalent dirt capacity to other bagless vacuums" had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the claim 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) and 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).
8. Upheld
The test report provided by Gtech had been conducted after the publication of the claim and submitted to the ASA much later. We considered it unreasonable to accept that as evidence.
We noted Gtech's comments that the brush-bar drive system was in the centre of the product, as opposed to the sides, and that this enabled the brush-bar bristles to go all the way to the edge of the product, enabling it to clean right up to its edges. However, we considered that the claim "The Gtech AirRam has excellent edge cleaning on both sides which ensures cleaning flush to the edges of your room" needed to be supported by evidence showing that the product could clean flush to the edges of the room. We therefore concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On that point, the claim 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) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
9. Not upheld
We tried the product on both a carpet and hard floor. We noted that the vacuum did propel forward when in use and found that this reduced the force needed to push the vacuum when it was operational compared to when it was not switched on. The test report measuring forward inertia drive submitted by Gtech post-dated the claim and therefore did not itself substantiate the claim. However, we noted that the report showed that the force needed to push the vacuum forward was reduced when it was operational, and considered that this corroborated our experience of using the sample product.
We acknowledged that the steering handle of the product had a 28-degree pivot which enabled the head of the vacuum to be turned left or right by twisting the wrist. We considered that those two actions added to the manoeuvrability of the vacuum and concluded that the claim "Forward inertia drive and 28 degree steering make the Gtech AirRam incredibly manoeuvrable" had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the claim 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) 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
The claims investigated and found to be in breach of the Code must not appear again in their current form without adequate substantiation. We advised Grey to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing advertising claims in future.
