Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both were Not upheld.
Ad description
The website www.livosenergy.com, for a wind farm developer, made several claims about the production of electricity from wind and the public perception of wind farms.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "a well-designed modern wind turbine is remarkably quiet in operation"; and
2. "One other discovery was that the vast majority (93-99%) of those who had seen a wind farm suggested that the experience would not have any effect on their intentions to return to an area".
Response
1. Livos Energy Ltd said the surrounding text made clear that "Virtually everything with moving parts will make some sound" and that they had provided context for the claim that a modern wind turbine was "remarkably quiet" by drawing a comparison with road traffic, trains and aircraft. They said the "Find out more" section of the website showed a table of comparative decibel values from different sources along with a reference to the source of that information, which was the report "Common Concerns about Wind Power" published by the Centre for Sustainable Energy in May 2011.
2. They pointed out that the figures quoted were taken from a report titled "The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism" produced by Glasgow Caledonian University and Cogent Strategies International Ltd in 2008. They believed this report was underpinned by comprehensive research, including economic factors, and they said they had made clear that this was the source of the claim on the website and provided details of where the full report could be accessed.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered readers would understand that modern wind turbines were described as "remarkably quiet" in comparison with other common sources of noise in order to demonstrate that wind turbine noise was not as loud as people might expect. We noted that the website went on to explain that planning regulations were in place to ensure noise levels from wind turbines were kept within certain limits.
We noted that the figures provided in the "Find out more" section of the website showed that a wind turbine was less noisy at a distance of 350 m than road traffic (at a distance of 100 m) and air traffic (at a distance of 150 m). The table was taken from the report "Common Concerns about Wind Power" ("the report"), which drew on peer-reviewed academic research and publicly funded studies to address issues including noise and impact on property prices. Details of where the report could be accessed were included below the table and we understood that the figures contained therein were referenced by other organisations, such as Renewable UK (the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries), and derived from documentation produced for The Scottish Office.
We understood that wind turbines produced noise and that in some cases there had been complaints made to statutory bodies about the nuisance. However, because the planning restrictions on wind turbines limited their noise impact in residential areas to a level lower than that of other common sources of noise, we considered the claim was unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ad under 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), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) and 11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. (Environmental claims), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted that the report produced for the Scottish Government, from which the information on tourism was derived, had been based on studies from several countries and concluded that the likely effect of wind energy on tourism would be very small. We noted that the website used bullet points to list some of the main findings of the report and that that list immediately preceded the claim "One other discovery was that the vast majority (93-99%) of those who had seen a wind farm suggested that the experience would not have any effect on their intentions to return to an area".
Although we understood that it was possible individual businesses could be affected by the erection of a wind farm in their local area, we considered that the claim was clearly referenced and accurately reported and we concluded that it was unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ad under 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), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) and 11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. (Environmental claims), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
