Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.lessmosquito.com, that offered Incognito insect repellent spray for sale, featured text that stated "There is no Stronger Insect Repellent Provides 100% protection against mosquitoes ... Works against all insects! Anywhere in the world There is nothing stronger". The ad featured a text box that included the text "Protects Against Mosquitos, Midges, Wasps, Bees, Flies, Sandflies, Horseflies, Ticks, Fleas, Gnats, and many more".
Issue
Travel Health Consultancy challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Provides 100% protection against mosquitoes";
2. "Works against all insects! Anywhere in the world"; and
3. "There is nothing stronger".
Response
1. Howad Ltd t/a Incognito said the advertised product had been clinically tested and proven to provide 100% efficacy for a number of hours. They provided a number of studies that they believed supported the claim.
2. Incognito acknowledged that the advertised product had not been tested on every insect in the world, but said it was more than likely that the active ingredient would work against all of them. They said the advertised product repelled every insect that it had been tested on.
3. Incognito said the product had been clinically tested and proven to be more effective than DEET based products, which they understood to be the strongest chemical insect repellent available. They intended the claim to mean that the advertised product was the most effective insect repellent.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad made clear that the product provided 100% protection against mosquitoes and that it worked against all insects in the world. It also named a number of insects and made clear that the product protected against many more. The image of the product featured text that stated "incognito anti-mosquito" and "Repels All Insects". In that context, we considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim 'Provides 100% protection against mosquitoes' to mean that the advertised product could be used by consumers to protect them against mosquitoes they might encounter.
The advertiser provided a number of studies that considered the effectiveness of the advertised product in relation to various species of mosquito. However, we understood that a significant number of species of mosquito existed and that the advertised product had only been tested on a limited number of those species. We therefore considered the evidence provided was not adequate to substantiate the claim that the advertised product provided 100% protection against mosquitoes they might encounter, as the ad implied.
The advertiser provided a number of reports that they believed supported the claim, but did not provide a detailed explanation of how they considered the reports substantiated the claims.
Two of the studies did not appear to be the full reports: the raw test data was omitted. Three of the test reports did not make clear whether the tests related to the complete formulation of the advertised product.
We considered consumers would expect the advertised product to provide 100% protection against mosquitoes for the duration Incognito advised when using the product, as per the instructions. The third test report did not make clear whether the dosage used during the test reflected the dosage that consumers would apply when using the advertised product. The "How to use incognito® natural insect repellent products" stated "On average incognito® natural insect repellent spray will give you up to 5 hours of good protection". In that context, we considered consumers would expect the advertised product to provide 100% protection against mosquitoes for a period of up to 5 hours. We were therefore concerned that the study showed that an hour after the test substance had been applied, the product did not provide 100% protection against the mosquitoes tested; rather it provided a significantly lower level of protection.
Because we had not seen adequate evidence that the advertised product provided 100% protection against mosquitoes people might encounter, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that basis, we concluded that the claim breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 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).
2. Upheld
In the context of the ad, we considered consumers were likely to understand the claim 'Works against all insects! Anywhere in the world' to mean that the product could be used by consumers to protect them against insects they may encounter around the world. We understood that the tests provided did not relate to all insects that consumers may encounter and were therefore concerned that we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate the claim that the advertised product "Works against all insects! Anywhere in the world".
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 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. Upheld
In the context of the ad, we considered consumers would understand the claim "There is nothing stronger" to mean that the advertised product was the most effective insect repellent available; providing 100% protection against mosquitoes and working against all insects around the world. We therefore considered we needed to see robust comparative evidence to demonstrate that.
Incognito provided a field test that compared the advertised product with three competitor products. Those products contained different concentrations of DEET. The study had been carried out in one location and the subjects were exposed to the mosquitoes and other insects present in that location.
Due to the limited number of competitor products tested and the field tests’ limitation to the mosquitoes and other insects present in the test location, we were concerned that the study did not demonstrate that the advertised product was the most effective insect repellent available in respect of all mosquitoes and insects. We therefore concluded that the claim "There is nothing stronger" had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, the ad 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. (Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Incognito to ensure that claims were capable of robust substantiation in future and to ensure that comparisons were not likely to mislead.
