Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
This case was published on 12 September 2012 but has been backdated to appear amongst the adjudications dated on 13 July 2011 when it was originally meant to appear, but was omitted from publication at that time, due to an administrative error. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and have taken steps to ensure this problem does not occur again.
Ad description
Marketing claims on a leaflet distribution website seen in March 2011 stated “We are the only company that can afford full time non-distributing supervisors ... We deliver faster than any other company ... We pay higher wages than any other company ... JogPost’s Award winning systems have been proven to generate up to 3 times the response rate ... JogPost is the most efficient leaflet distribution service in London”.
Issue
Letterboxdistribution.com challenged whether the claims:
1. “We are the only company that can afford full time non-distributing supervisors”;
2. “We deliver faster than any other company”;
3. “We pay higher wages than any other company”;
4. “Jog Post's award winning systems generate 3 times the response rate”; and
5. “the most efficient leaflet distribution service in London”
could be substantiated.
Response
1. Jogpost Ltd (Jogpost) agreed to amend the claim to state “We are the only company that provides full time, non-distributing ‘jogger supervisors’”.
2. Jogpost said they had conducted a lot of research into the most efficient way to distribute leaflets. They said they had tested staff members running, using roller blades, bicycles, electric scooters and walking. They said their trials showed that jogging was the most efficient method.
3. Jogpost agreed to remove the claim and to state “We aim to pay higher wages than any other company, in fact the highest in the industry” instead.
4. Jogpost said they generated much higher responses for their clients, many of whom were very experienced in the leaflet distribution industry and were very surprised with their methods as they were unique. They attached five reviews from their clients.
5. Jogpost said they were the only company that used joggers; joggers delivered faster and they were therefore the most efficient leaflet distribution company in London.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA welcomed Jogpost’s decision to amend the ad. However, we understood from the complainant that other leaflet distribution companies employed full-time non-distributing supervisors. We therefore concluded that the claim “We are the only company that can afford full time non-distributing supervisors” was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).
2. Upheld
We noted Jogpost had conducted a number of trials on the fastest way to deliver leaflets. However, to substantiate the claim “We deliver faster than any other company” Jogpost would need to hold data that compared their delivery speed with their competitors’ delivery speeds and showed they were always faster. Because they did not send that information, we concluded the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).
3. Upheld
We welcomed Jogpost’s willingness to amend the ad. However, because they did not send comparative evidence that showed they paid “higher wages than any other company” we concluded the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).
4. Upheld
We noted Jogpost did not send comparative data to show the leaflets they delivered generated three times more responses that the leaflets their competitors delivered. We therefore concluded the claim had not been substantiated.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).
5. Upheld
We noted Jogpost’s assertion that jogging was the most efficient way of distributing leaflets. However, because they did not send comparative data that showed they were the most efficient leaflet distribution company in London we concluded the claim had not been substantiated.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).
Action
The claims found to be in breach of the code must not be repeated.
