Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, one of which was Upheld and one Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for JML, seen on 4 July 2018. The ad for the Arctic Air portable conditioner included a male voice-over, who said “Create your own chill zone this summer with Arctic Air, the incredible personal space cooler from JML. Arctic Air's evaporative air cooling technology reduces temperatures by up to 40%.” On screen the Arctic Air was displayed with a digital thermometer on either side of the fan’s vents. One digital thermometer stated “62C” while the other stated “36C”. On-screen text stated “Up to 40% Temperature Drop”, with small text beneath that which stated “For best results use ice cold water”. The voice-over then said, “Simply add water to enjoy a cool refreshing breeze, cooling purifying and humidifying your personal space so you stay relaxed and comfortable wherever you are in your home, for up to 8 hours on a single fill.” Small on-screen text stated “Lowest setting with primed filter.”
Issue
The ASA received three complaints:
1. two complainants challenged whether the claim "Arctic Air's evaporative air cooling technology reduces temperatures by up to 40%" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. one complainant challenged whether the claim "for up to eight hours on a single fill" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. John Mills Ltd t/a JML said they provided test reports for the Arctic Air produced by an independent test house. They said that the tests, which recreated the hairdryer demo as shown in the ad, reduced the air temperature from 62.7C to 36C, a temperature reduction of 40% in centigrade. They said the test was conducted with ice cold water and that legal text at the bottom of the ad recommended consumers did the same. They said that the claim was phrased as “up to”, because if the water was less than ice cold, the results would be less dramatic.
JML said temperature changes would be affected by the water temperature in the device so the use of “up to” was chosen to cover those variables. JML said that if the Arctic Air could cool the air produced by a hairdryer it would therefore be able to cool other hot spaces, which is when the product would be used. They said that although homes did not reach either 48C or 62C, rooms could be become very hot in the summer and that the Arctic Air did have a cooling effect. They said that in the summer, UK homes commonly reached temperatures of 30C or more and the product would clearly cool spaces that reached that temperature. They said that if the Arctic Air cooled temperatures at 48C by 61% it followed that 30C temperatures would be cooled by at least 39%, which would therefore substantiate the “up to 40%” statement.
Clearcast said they were provided the independent test reports which used a heat gun and a hair dryer. They said that when heated air was blown into the Arctic Air using the hairdryer the product blew out air that was 43% cooler in centigrade; when the heat gun was used the result was a 62% reduction. They said the test reports were sufficient to support the claim, especially since the cooling effect achieved was actually greater than JML’s claim of “up to 40%”.
Clearcast said that view was reinforced by another test conducted using the Arctic Air. In the test the device was used in a number of indoor environments, the hottest with an ambient temperature of 30.1C, which they considered to be reflective of everyday environments during the summer. They said the demonstrated differences in temperature, depending on the location of the device, ranged from 5% to 36%. They considered that was sufficient, combined with the hairdryer and heat gun data, to support an “up to 40%” claim. They said the cooling effect when room temperatures were 19.4C was up to 25% but they did not consider consumers would use a cooling device in such circumstances.
Clearcast said the qualification “use with ice cold water” mirrored the instructions in the instruction manual, which stated “use very cold water - the cooler the water used to fill Arctic Air, the cooler the air that it produces”. They said the ad clearly stated that the product cooled down “personal space” and showed the product being used in close proximity to its users.
2. JML provided a report which they said clearly showed the product would work for up to eight hours when used on the lowest fan setting and when the filter was primed, as was stated in the accompanying legal text in the ad.
Clearcast said the claim was supported by test results that showed the Arctic Air could work for up to eight hours on one filling. They said the ad’s qualification “used on the lowest setting with a prime filter” advised how the eight-hour result could be achieved. They said the advice was also featured in the user manual. They also said both qualifying supers in the ad were slightly larger than the required minimum and had been held for the required duration.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “reduces temperature by up to 40%” to mean that the Arctic Air would make everyday indoor temperatures up to 40% colder.
We noted that JML had provided the results of various tests which they had conducted on the product. We noted, however, that those tests measured changes in temperature in degrees Celsius and then used those numbers to calculate percentage changes in temperature. We considered that this methodology was fundamentally flawed because the centigrade scale did not begin at the coldest possible temperature and instead used the point at which water froze. Therefore, a percentage reduction in Celsius did not correlate to the same percentage reduction in temperature.
Notwithstanding that, we noted that while the tests that used the hairdryer and heat gun were able to demonstrate that the Arctic Air could cool air, from 62C to 36C, we considered consumers’ homes were generally not, and extremely unlikely to ever be, as hot as a hairdryer or heat-gun. Although the hairdryer could be seen partially in the section of the ad where the claim was made, we did not consider that altered the overriding impression of the ad that the product could reduce temperatures by up to 40% in everyday indoor environments.
For those reasons, we concluded the claim that the “Arctic Air’s evaporative air cooling technology reduces temperatures by up to 40%” had not been adequately substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration).
2. Not upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim that the Arctic Air would work “for up to eight hours on a single fill” to mean that the device would work for eight hours without being refilled. We considered they were likely to understand from the claim “up to”, that eight hours was the maximum amount of time that the device could work for, and that the device would work for less than eight hours on other settings.
The evidence we saw stated that the unit was prepared by soaking its filters, refilled with cold tap water, then run at eight hours continuously. The results stated that at the 8-hour mark, the water tank had emptied, although the filter and reservoir in the bottom of the unit were still wet, thus working as intended for up to the eight-hour mark.
We considered that the testing reflected the type of environment in which the product would be used and were satisfied that the test results demonstrated that the product was able to work for up to eight hours on the lowest performance setting. We therefore concluded that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On that point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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), and 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told John Mills Ltd t/a JML not to imply that the Arctic Air could reduce temperatures by 40% unless they held evidence carried out in everyday indoor environments to show that was the case.
