A website for iCandy pushchairs, www.icandyworld.com, seen on 5 September 2016, stated "... The world's first single footprint double pushchair ... In 2007 ... we launched the world's first ever single to double pushchair in a single footprint ...".
phil&teds challenged whether the claims "The world's first single footprint double pushchair" and "we launched the world's first ever single to double pushchair in a single footprint" were misleading and could be substantiated.
iCandy World Ltd did not dispute that phil&teds had created a single to double pushchair before iCandy launched the Apple 2 Pear in 2007 and they did not believe the claim suggested that iCandy had produced the first single to double pushchair. The claim stated iCandy had produced the world's first single footprint double pushchair, and they believed that was an important distinction. iCandy believed "single footprint" meant a pushchair with dimensions, axle to axle and total wheel base length, of a size commonly used by single pushchairs.
They understood that the size of a pushchair's footprint – i.e. its axle to axle and total wheel base length – was a key consideration for consumers when purchasing a pushchair. They understood that a wider footprint could cause issues, such as difficulties using public transport (due to the narrow aisles and limited space for pushchairs), entering through doors and navigating busy crowds. They believed that footprint size also affected the manoeuvrability of a pushchair – e.g. the handling and turning circle.
They believed that given that context, and the express wording of the claim, including its explicit and prominent reference to "single footprint", the average consumer would interpret the claim to mean that iCandy was the first company to produce a single pushchair that converted to a double pushchair, which had the dimensions of a typical single pushchair.
They said that the iCandy Apple 2 Pear had a footprint of 55 cm axle to axle and 77 cm total wheel base length. They believed that was typical of the footprints of single pushchairs which ranged from 52 to 60 cm axle to axle, and 70 to 83 cm total wheel base length; they provided some examples. They also provided some examples of single-to-double pushchairs that had appeared on the market after the Apple 2 Pear and their corresponding axle to axle length, and total wheel base length. They understood that the phil&teds' single to double pushchair had a footprint of 67 cm axle to axle and 97 cm total wheel base length, which they said was considerably larger than the examples provided and the Apple 2 Pear's footprint. They maintained that phil&teds' footprint measurement was more akin to tandem double pushchairs (where two children were seated one behind the other), which did not have the single to double capability and they provided the measurements for one tandem double pushchair as an example.
For those reasons, iCandy did not believe the claim was misleading.
The ASA understood that both phil&teds pushchair and the iCandy Apple 2 Pear pushchair were single pushchairs that could be converted to a double pushchair by adding a second seat either above or tucked under the first seat and acknowledged that iCandy did not dispute that phil&teds had been the first company to produce a single to double pushchair. We noted iCandy's argument about how they thought the average consumer would interpret "single footprint" to mean a pushchair with dimensions, in particular axle to axle and total wheel base length, of a typical single pushchair and we noted the examples provided. However, we did not consider consumers would be likely to attribute particular dimensions to single pushchairs, because there was no industry standard and because the specifications of pushchairs varied according to consumer needs. We considered that consumers were likely to interpret “single footprint” to mean the space taken up by a pushchair which accommodated a single child, without attributing it to particular dimensions.
We considered that the average consumer was likely to interpret the claims “The world’s first single footprint double pushchair” and “we launched the world’s first ever single to double pushchair in a single footprint” to mean iCandy were the first company to launch a single pushchair which could be converted to a double pushchair, without increasing the pushchair’s footprint to accommodate the second child. Because that was not the case, we concluded the claims were misleading and had not been substantiated.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told iCandy World Ltd not to make claims that their Apple 2 Pear pushchair was the world's first single footprint double pushchair or the world's first ever single to double pushchair in a single footprint.