Background
Summary of Council decision:
14 issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, an e-mail, a brand page on an online supermarket, a web page, a post on Facebook and an in-store sales promotion for Andrex toilet paper:
a. The TV ad featured shots of empty toilet rolls, while a voice-over stated, "There is a problem affecting homes across Britain. We call it Rollophobia - the reluctance to change or dispose of empty rolls. Our most effective treatment is new Andrex. Now made stronger to last even longer." The ad also included a shot of an empty roll being replaced by a fresh one and a puppy unravelling a stream of toilet paper. The final shot featured a pile of empty rolls being knocked aside by a pack of Andrex, with on-screen text stating "Made stronger to last even longer".
b. The e-mail, which was sent to customers on the Andrex mailing list, was headlined "New Andrex made stronger to last even longer", with “longer” in larger letters. Text in a box underneath stated "How much longer does new Andrex last? If you bought a new Andrex 9 roll pack every week for a year instead of another regular brand, what could you wrap with the extra length?". Possible answers, a blue whale, a Boeing 747 and a taxi were illustrated with graphics of these items wrapped in toilet roll. Text underneath the pictures stated "The longer lasting roll challenge ... Take it now". Another box contained a pie-chart made from a toilet-roll graphic and the text "New Andrex is up to 38% longer than other regular branded rolls ... Available in major supermarkets based on a 9 roll pack".
c. The dedicated brand page, www.mysupermarket.co.uk/#/Shopping/FindProducts.aspx?Query=andrex, featured a graphic of a puppy surrounded by unravelled toilet paper with the caption "New Andrex made stronger to last even longer".
d. The web page www.andrex.co.uk, featured a box with text stating "New Andrex made stronger to last even longer ... the best ever treatment for Rollophobia" and a video clip of the last five seconds of ad (a). A second box contained an image of three empty toilet rolls and text stating "What is Rollophobia?". A third box featured an image of the British Isles superimposed onto a toilet roll with the caption "Living with Rollophobia". A final box featured a graphic of a toilet roll with ruler-style measuring lines and the phrase "72 metres longer", with a caption asking "How much longer does new Andrex last?". Clicking on the fourth box redirected consumers to a web page where text stated, "New Andrex is up to ... 72 metres longer [on the same graphic as before] ... 540 sheets longer [placed on a graphic of folded sheets of paper] ... 38% longer [on the same graphic as before] ... Than other regular branded rolls ... Available in major supermarkets based on a 9 roll pack". Underneath this were questions that consumers could answer, such as those in ads (b) and (e).
e. The Facebook post featured the text "If you bought a New Andrex 9 roll pack every week for a year instead of another regular brand, what could you cover with the extra toilet paper?". The picture beneath showed a graphic of a tennis court covered with toilet paper with the caption "You could cover an entire tennis court". Below this the phrase "up to 38% longer than other regular branded rolls" was placed on a stream of toilet paper, next to a nine roll pack and the footnote "available in major supermarkets". In response to a post by a user that read "52% thinner", the advertiser had responded "New Andrex is actually designed to be stronger to last even longer".
f. The in-store sales promotion featured a price cut from £4.45 to £3.50 and a graphic of a stream of toilet paper alongside the text "New Andrex made stronger to last even longer".
Issue
SCA Hygiene Products UK Ltd challenged whether:
1. the claim "stronger to last longer" in all the ads was misleading and could be substantiated, because they believed that making the product stronger would not result in it becoming physically longer or lasting longer because consumers were using fewer sheets;
2. the claim "stronger to last longer" in all the ads was misleading, because they understood that the new product had decreased in thickness, which they believed had been noticed by users and was likely to encourage more use, rather than less;
3. the presentation of the claim "stronger to last longer" in all the ads was misleading, because it emphasised the word "longer", which they felt consumers would interpret to relate to physical length rather than the length of time the roll would last;
4. the claim "longer", whether referring to time or physical measurement, was sufficiently qualified to clarify to what the product was being compared;
5. the claim implied by the presentation of "longer", that the product was generally longer than those of competitors, could be substantiated;
6. the statistics in ads (b), (d) and (e) were misleading, because they emphasised length and therefore implied that the 'new' product was physically longer than the old formulation, or other brands, which they understood was not the case;
7. the statistics in ads (b), (d) and (e) amounted to a misleading comparison, because they understood that they referred to a brand of toilet paper with only a six per cent market share, rather than a similar competitor, and so exaggerated the difference;
8. the graphics and imagery in all the ads (including streams of toilet paper, jet planes and tennis courts) were misleading, because they emphasised length and therefore implied that the 'new' product was physically longer than the old formulation, or other brands, which they understood was not the case;
9. the claim "stronger" in all the ads was misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that testing showed high variability in the strength of the product with some samples being less strong than the previous formulation;
10. the claim "stronger" in all the ads was sufficiently qualified to clarify whether it was a comparison with 'old' Andrex or with current competitors;
11. the advertisers could substantiate the implied claim that the product was stronger than competitors, because they understood there was evidence to demonstrate that this was not the case;
12. the claims "stronger" and "stronger to last longer" in all the ads in relation to 'old' Andrex were misleading, because they believed any strength improvement was negligible and meaningless to consumers, and therefore consumers would not use fewer sheets and the product would not last longer;
13. the statistics and comparisons in ads (b), (d) and (e) were misleading, because they were based on buying a nine-roll pack every week for a year, which they understood was not a realistic reflection of buying habits and therefore artificially multiplied differences between brands; and
14. the references to "longer lasting roll challenge" and empty rolls in ads (a), (b) and (d), and the references to "rollophobia" in ads (a) and (d) were misleading, because they furthered the implication that the new product was physically longer or would last longer.
Response
Kimberly-Clark Ltd said all of the challenges concerned two claims: "now made stronger to last even longer"; and "up to 38% longer".
They said "now made stronger to last even longer" was a self-comparison claim that referred to a product specification upgrade on sale from July 2013 to Andrex Classic White toilet tissue. They said they had completed several tests throughout the development of the new product on the old tissue paper (Old Andrex), the new product (New Andrex) and a prototype that was made with higher strength than Old Andrex and was selected for roll-out across New Andrex production. For the purposes of the tests, they sourced the products from a range of stores and mills. Kimberly-Clark said they had made a significant investment in product quality in 2013 to improve strength, and they added fibre and used a greater percentage of stronger pulp. They had conducted tests on Old Andrex and New Andrex in the Kimberly Clark Sector Laboratory to measure the strength of tissue. The sample size for Old Andrex was 1,245 (collected between 1 June 2012 and 28 February 2013) and 1,626 for New Andrex (collected between 1 June 2013 and 17 December 2013). They said tensile strengths Machine Direction Tensile (MDT) and Cross Direction Tensile (CDT) were measured as part of the quality tests and the Geometric Mean Tensile (GMT), which measured overall strength, was calculated from the MDT and CDT data to give the overall strength. The mean GMT was 142.87 Newton metres for Old Andrex and 160.03 Newton metres for New Andrex, which was a 12% increase.
Kimberly-Clark said that in their experience, problems relating to deficiency in strength of tissue paper included ripping or shredding during use, losing strength when wet and being easily pierced by fingers. They conducted consumer tests through an independent agency to test their hypothesis that by making the product stronger, consumers would feel more confident that they would experience fewer strength-based problems and would therefore need to use fewer sheets. Participants were given the product in unbranded packaging and were asked to use the product for a week, then to feedback to an interviewer in person. The results showed that consumers had rated New Andrex and the prototype more highly than Old Andrex when answering questions to do with strength while wiping, strength when wet and not tearing during use. They also showed that consumers had rated New Andrex and the prototype more highly than Old Andrex when asked whether the product was too weak, whether it ripped during use and whether it was pierced during use. There was a significant increase in consumers agreeing with the statement "the toilet tissue runs out less often than others" when referring to New Andrex and the prototype and there was a reduction in the number of sheets consumers claimed to use.
Kimberly-Clark said "up to 38% longer*" was a comparative claim against regular branded products and the claim was used in conjunction with the qualification text "*than other regular branded rolls available across major supermarkets", which they felt could easily be understood by customers. They said it was based on an annual competitor audit from products sourced in August and September 2013 and they had used an independent agency to source products from major supermarkets (Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Waitrose, The Co-Operative, Aldi and Lidl) in the UK . They said the products were sourced in accordance with standard 'mainstream' rolls, as defined by market research company AC Nielsen segmentation. This meant that luxury, lotioned, scented, quilted, decorated, recycled/alternative fibre and economy rolls were excluded. They also excluded jumbo, extra, supersize, big rolls and double rolls, as these were rolls that tended to be larger versions of standard rolls and made comparisons to standard rolls. "Branded" rolls were defined as those that were not retailer branded and were available from more than one retailer. Products had to have been available in more than one of the supermarkets in the previous 52 weeks.
They said they used AC Nielsen data about roll length from pack statements, and where such data was missing, Kimberly-Clark lab measurements were conducted and used. They provided a table that contained information about the average sheet length, average sheet width, average sheet count and average roll length of New Andrex, Velvet Soft, Cushelle Cushiony Softness, Andrex Puppies On A Roll, Nicky Soft Touch, Soft 'n Gentle and Cashmere. Kimberly-Clark understood that to use an "up to" claim, they had to show New Andrex was longer than a minimum of 10% of other products in the market segment. The results showed that Andrex was 38% longer than two other branded products, which represented 28.5% of the market segment.
1. Kimberly-Clark said this claim did not imply that adding strength made the product physically longer, but that it lasted longer than Old Andrex. They said the consumer test concluded that the extra strength added to each sheet of Andrex was noticeable to consumers. They provided evidence that showed that more respondents agreed with the statements "It runs out less often than others" and "It's such good quality I ended up using less" when talking about New Andrex than when talking about Old Andrex.
2. Kimberly-Clark said they had not made any claims on thickness, but rather on the strength of New Andrex. They said thickness of the sheet was not relevant to the claim and the results of their consumer tests showed consumers did not report a reduction in thickness perception or an increase in usage, but the opposite.
3. Kimberly-Clark said SCA Hygiene Products UK Ltd had misconstrued the term "longer" by taking it in isolation rather than reading it as part of the claim "New Andrex made stronger to last even longer". They said they had never used the claim in any other format than that complete sentence. They provided the results of consumer quantitative testing, which they said they undertook prior to releasing any media to which the complaint referred to ensure clarity of message outtake. They asked participants to describe the ad they had just seen as if they were talking to a friend, and responses were recorded with no prompts or suggestions. Kimberly-Clark said 40% of consumers spontaneously recalled "strength and long lasting" or "long lasting", which were the second most recalled messages of the consumer test (after "Andrex", which had 52% recall).
4. & 5. Kimberly-Clark reiterated that they had never made the claim "longer" in isolation, only using the word in the context of a wider claim. They believed the word "new" in the claim "New Andrex made stronger to last even longer" made sufficiently clear that the claim was a self-comparative one of New Andrex against Old Andrex.
6. Kimberly-Clark said they had never claimed that New Andrex was physically longer than Old Andrex and all length claims contained the qualifier "*than other regular branded rolls available across major supermarkets".
7. Kimberly-Clark said the claim was an "up to" claim in comparison with multiple brands. They said they ensured all of the "regular branded rolls" were nationally visible and available for consumers to buy. They said they did not put weighting on market share, as it was not visible to consumers. They said the product they used as their comparative product was Cushelle Cushiony Softness, which did have a market share of 6%,, but this was also the third highest selling branded product in the market place and therefore Cushelle had a significant presence in the market.
8. Kimberly-Clark said it was very common for toilet tissue brands, including SCA Hygiene Products, to use streams of toilet tissue and other similar imagery in advertising. They said wherever "up to 38% longer" appeared, the full qualifier was used to confirm that the comparison was to other regular branded rolls. This included the imagery on the website.
9. Kimberly-Clark said there would always be a degree of specification variability in all toilet tissue production, with not every single roll exactly the same, but the investment in fibre had resulted in a significant improvement in strength and the improvement in performance according to customer perception had demonstrated that. When conducting the consumer tests, they said they ensured the product came from a variety of sources to ensure that a good illustration of the product available on the market was tested.
10. Kimberly-Clark said the use of the word "New" when referring to Andrex made clear that it was a self-comparison claim and a change to the Andrex product. They said the use of the phrases "made stronger" and "last even longer" demonstrated a product change rather than a competitive comparison and at no point had the word "stronger" been used in a competitive context.
11. Kimberly-Clark said they had not made a comparative claim against other brands on the strength of New Andrex and they did not see how the claim "New Andrex made stronger to last even longer" could imply that New Andrex was stronger than competitors.
12. Kimberly-Clark said the consumer tests had shown a reduction in problems relating to strength, such as tearing or ripping and being too weak, and consumers had said they used fewer sheets per usage occasion, showing that the increase in strength was highly noticeable.
13. Kimberly-Clark said these ads did not suggest that purchasing a nine roll pack was a reflection of buying habits, although the purchase of a nine-roll pack was common. They said the longer lasting roll challenge was a trivia based challenge that was set up with the hypothetical question "if you bought ..." and clearly stated that the answers were based on buying a nine-roll pack every week for a year. They believed that as consumers were aware of their own buying habits, they would see these images as purely illustrative.
14. Kimberly-Clark said the references to 'rollophobia' and the "longer lasting roll challenges" were used in conjunction with the claim "Now made stronger to last even longer".
Clearcast said they approved the ad on the basis that the main message was an internal product improvement story of how the new Andrex product was stronger than the previous version. At pre-production stage the advertiser provided them with consumer test data to show that the new product was stronger, and as a result, lasted longer. Clearcast felt that the references made in the voice-over to "Our most effective treatment" and "now made stronger" made clear that the comparison was internal and there was no suggestion that Andrex rolls were longer than those of competitors.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted SCA Hygiene Products's comment that the claim could be interpreted to mean that by increasing the strength of the product, it had become physically longer. However, we considered that as the ads related to a new product, consumers were more likely to interpret the words "last longer" as a comparison with the previous product. We therefore considered whether Kimberly-Clark had adequately demonstrated that customers were likely to use fewer sheets of New Andrex than Old Andrex. Because we noted that the results of the blind consumer tests showed that consumers consistently agreed that New Andrex would run out less often and they would use fewer sheets, we concluded that the claim had been substantiated and was unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Exaggeration) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(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 them in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted that the claim emphasised strength rather than thickness and Kimberly-Clark had made changes to the Andrex product to improve strength, by adding fibre and using a greater percentage of stronger pulp. We considered that the results of the external consumer tests showed that New Andrex was rated more highly than Old Andrex with regard to matters that indicated the strength of product. We noted that SCA Hygiene Products had conducted their own consumer tests that suggested New Andrex was not rated more highly than Old Andrex in these areas, but we considered that the nature of consumer perception tests meant that judgements and therefore results were likely to differ. We also noted that Kimberly-Clark's subsequent internal test results showed a significant increase to the GMT strength of each sheet. While we understood that SCA Hygiene Products believed that a 12% difference in thickness was unlikely to be significant enough to be noticed by consumers, we considered that the tests provided by Kimberly-Clark had demonstrated that customers had noticed a difference and we therefore concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Exaggeration) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(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 them in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted that the word "longer" appeared in all of the ads as part of the full claim "Made stronger to last even longer" and that the ads all made clear that "New Andrex" was being described. However, we also noted that all of the ads emphasised the word "longer" by making the text larger, a different colour or a different font to the surrounding words. We understood that SCA Hygiene Products believed the effect of this was to leave the consumer with the takeaway impression that the new product was "longer". While we accepted that the word "longer" stood out in most of the ads, we considered it was unlikely that consumers would read the word "longer" in isolation. We therefore concluded that consumers were likely to understand that "longer" in this context referred to the length of time a roll would last, and the claim was unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements 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
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Exaggeration) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising) 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 them in breach.
4. & 5. Not upheld
We accepted that Kimberly-Clark had demonstrated that consumers were likely to understand that "longer" in the claim "Stronger to last longer" referred to the length of time a roll of New Andrex was likely to last in comparison to Old Andrex.
We considered whether the word "longer" in the claim "up to 38% longer" was sufficiently qualified. We noted that the word "longer" in this context always appeared next to or above the text "… than other regular branded rolls" and that all of the ads included the text "available in major supermarkets" and a reference to a nine-roll pack. We understood that the "up to 38% longer" claim was a comparative claim with other regular branded rolls that were available in major supermarkets.
We considered whether Kimberly-Clark's definition of "regular branded rolls" was likely to match the average consumer's. We noted that Kimberly-Clark had defined "regular" as excluding luxury, lotioned, scented, quilted, decorated, recycled/alternative fibre and economy rolls, which we deemed was likely to be in line with consumer expectations. We noted that Kimberly-Clark had defined "branded" as those that were not retailer branded and were available from more than one retailer, and considered whether consumers were therefore likely to understand that the word "branded" excluded own brand products. We considered that the inclusion of the word "branded" in the ad distinguished "branded" products from own brand products and that this was supported by the text "available in major supermarkets", which suggested that the products had to be available in a number of supermarkets, which would not apply to own brand products. We determined that Kimberly-Clark's definition of "major supermarkets" included Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Waitrose, The Co-Operative, Aldi and Lidl, and was also likely to be in line with the average consumer's expectations.
Having determined that the type of products that were the subject of the "up to" comparison was acceptable, we noted Kimberly-Clark had shown in support of the "up to" claim that New Andrex was 38% longer than two of the six comparable products as set out by the qualification and also longer than the remaining comparable products. We concluded that the claim "longer" was sufficiently qualified to make the basis of the comparison clear and the results of the comparison had been adequately substantiated.
On these points, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
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.
(Qualification),
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(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),
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification),
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
6. Not upheld
We considered that Kimberly-Clark had demonstrated that New Andrex was "up to 38% longer" than other brands, as defined in the qualifications contained within ads (b) (d) and (e). We noted that as well as the "up to 38% longer" claim, ad (d) contained the claims "up to 72 metres longer" and "up to 540 sheets longer", with the same qualifications "than other regular branded rolls" and "available in major supermarkets, based on a 9 roll pack". We considered that the data Kimberly-Clark had supplied that compared the length of New Andrex with the six other products, showed that, based on a nine-roll pack, New Andrex was on average at least 72 metres longer than two of the competitors and at least 540 sheets longer than two of the competitors and longer to some degree than all of the other products included in the comparison. We considered that this was sufficient to justify the further "up to" comparisons. Again, we considered that the basis of these length comparisons had been made clear in the ads and the ads did not claim that New Andrex was longer than Old Andrex.
However, we noted that ads (b), (d) and (e) all placed a great deal of emphasis on the word "longer". All the ads contained both the "up to 38% longer" and "stronger to last even longer" claims, which used the word "longer" to mean different things; the first relating to length and the second relating to strength of the product. We considered whether this would be likely to confuse consumers and whether it would be sufficiently clear in this context how the word "longer" should be interpreted in the ads. Again, we considered that while emphasis was given to the word "longer" in these ads, by making the word larger than the surrounding text or by using curved text, the word was not significantly larger than the qualifying text next to it. We concluded that it was unlikely that consumers would read the word "longer" without the surrounding text, which made clear what was meant by each claim and the ads were not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
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.
(Qualification),
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
7. Not upheld
We noted ads (b), (d) and (e) stated "If you bought a New Andrex 9 roll pack every week for a year instead of another regular brand …" and understood that this comment referred to Cushelle Cushiony Softness, one of the 'regular branded' rolls tested. We also understood that that brand had a 6% share of the toilet roll market and was the third largest selling product.
Given that we were satisfied that the terms of the comparison had been made sufficiently clear and that the advertiser had shown that, under these terms, their product was longer than all of the others, including Cushelle Cushiony Softness, by up to 38%, we did not consider the fact that the results that the advertiser had chosen to highlight in the "up to" claims related to a product with a market share of 6% rendered the comparison misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) and 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
8. Not upheld
We noted that the images and graphics used in the ads, which included streams of toilet paper, a blue whale, a Boeing 747, a taxi and a tennis court, portrayed animals and objects that were known for their large size. We accepted that images of streams of paper were common in ads for toilet tissue brands and they and the other images emphasised size and length. We noted that Kimberly-Clark had proved that New Andrex was up to 38% longer than other branded products, but was not longer than Old Andrex. We considered that the text surrounding the imagery made sufficiently clear that New Andrex was being compared in terms of how much longer it would last. We considered that, given many of the images were not commonplace in toilet tissue paper advertising, consumers would be likely to read the text surrounding them, which explained the reason for their inclusion. For example, the "longer lasting roll challenge" in ad (b) featured text that stated "If you bought a new Andrex 9 roll pack every week for a year instead of another regular brand, what could you wrap with the extra length?" next to pictures of a blue whale, a Boeing 747 and a taxi wrapped in toilet roll.
We concluded that consumers would interpret from the ads as a whole that the product would last longer than other branded products and the basis of each size comparison was made clear. Consumers were unlikely to be misled.
On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) 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.
(Qualification),
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(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),
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification),
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
9., 10., 11. & 12. Not upheld
We noted that the word "stronger" did not appear in isolation in any of the ads. We considered that all of the ads stated that the product was "Now made stronger to last even longer" or preceded the "stronger" claim with the word "new". We therefore considered that it would be clear to consumers that the claim "stronger" was a self-comparative claim that reflected a change in the product, and there was no implied strength comparison with competitors. We noted that Kimberly-Clark had amended the formula of New Andrex to improve the strength of each sheet and external consumer tests showed that consumers noticed this difference and believed the product would last longer than Old Andrex. While we understood that tests on rolls of toilet tissue could produce varying results between rolls of the same product, we were satisfied that the evidence had demonstrated an increased perception of strength. Furthermore, upon receipt of the complaint, Kimberly-Clark had conducted further internal strength testing to demonstrate their claim, which showed that on average there was a definitive improvement in the strength of New Andrex when compared to Old Andrex.
On these points, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
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.
(Qualification),
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(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),
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification),
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Exaggeration) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
13. Not upheld
We noted that the statistics in ads (b), (d) and (e) were based on purchasing a nine-roll pack of toilet paper each every week for a year. We agreed with SCA Hygiene Products's view that this was not necessarily a reflection of normal buying habits and an average family might not purchase a nine-roll pack each week. However, we also noted that the ads were clear about the basis for the comparisons. We considered that the ads did not claim that purchasing a nine-roll pack each week was typical and we therefore concluded that the statistics and comparisons were unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) 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. (Qualification), 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) and 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
14. Not upheld
We accepted that the references "longer lasting roll challenge" and "rollophobia" as well as the empty rolls did further the implication that New Andrex would last longer, especially when read in conjunction with the claim "made stronger to last even longer". However, we considered that they were meant to do so. We did not consider that they implied that the rolls were physically longer. As we had seen evidence that consumers' experience indicated that they would use fewer sheets of New Andrex, we concluded that it was reasonable to come to the conclusion that it could last longer and that the claims were unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) 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. (Qualification), 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) and 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons) and 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), 3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification), 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration) and 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action required.
