Ad description
Two ads, in decorating and garden magazines:
a. The first ad was headed "THE PERFECT FINISH". Text below stated "Marston & Langinger, with the help of the world's leading marine coating experts, created a paint to protect and enhance its most valuable architectural creations. Exterior Eggshell is a tough self-priming paint with a soft sheen that belies its outstanding durability. Proven on the finest garden rooms in the world, it is now available to buy in a choice of three finishes. Exterior Eggshell; Interior Eggshell and a stunning, similarly durable, super-chalky Interior Matt". The ad featured a product-shot overlaid on an image of the inside of an architectural dome. Text below stated "MARSTON & LANGINGER THE BEST PAINT IN THE WORLD".
b. The second ad featured an image of dried flowers in a vase. Drops of paint ran from the image and down the ad. Text below was headed "DRAWN FROM NATURE". Text below stated "The Marston & Langinger colour palette was created by architectural designers to match, contrast or complement natural stones and flora. The paints are not only beautiful but technically superior. Their genesis was working with the world's leading marine coating experts for Marston & Langinger to protect and enhance its most valuable garden room creations. Self-priming, extraordinarily durable with impeccable environmental credentials, Marston & Langinger paint is now available to buy in a choice of three finishes: Exterior Eggshell; Interior Eggshell and a stunning, similarly durable, super-chalky Interior Matt". Text at the bottom-right of the ad stated "MARSTON & LANGINGER THE BEST PAINT IN THE WORLD".
Issue
Farrow and Ball Ltd challenged whether the claim "THE BEST PAINT IN THE WORLD" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Marston and Langinger Ltd (M&L) said their paints exceeded the notably tough criteria set down by the Nordic Council of Ministers for the Nordic ecolabel. Their environmental credentials supported extremely low VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions and odours for the end consumer.
M&L said they had been a buyer of paint before they became a seller of paint. They had sought the best and their research led to working with one of the world's top marine coating specialists; this was referenced in the ads. They had an international reputation for designing and building structures of the highest quality and their demands for a suitable coating that was both aesthetically pleasing and simultaneously capable of supporting a warranty across the wide variety of climatic conditions to which they catered were not readily met. Environmental credentials were important too, and corollaries of this were VOC emissions and odour. Taking their interior paints as an example, the EU limits for VOC emissions were 30 gm/litre, yet their VOC emissions were a maximum of 1 gm/litre. Combining durability, ease and quality of application, pigment strength; surface properties and environmental credentials in one product was extremely unusual.
M&L said their paint was different to others because it lacked smell and had superior opacity, flow characteristics and colour strength. As it dried, it levelled to an even coating and had extremely good wipe clean properties. Over years, M&L-painted surfaces were unusually resilient to knocks and severe blows which supported the claim "The paints are not only beautiful, but also technically superior".
Assessment
Upheld in relation to ad (b) only
The ASA considered that the claim "THE BEST PAINT IN THE WORLD" in ad (a), in the absence of any other claims in the ad which suggested that it might be comparative, was likely to be seen by readers as puffery, i.e. the advertisers' expression of opinion about their own product, and was not therefore a claim capable of objective substantiation or misleading.
However, we noted that ad (b) stated that M&L's products were "technically superior" which we considered was a top parity claim that their paints were amongst the most technically advanced paints available. In that context we considered that the claim "THE BEST PAINT IN THE WORLD" was likely to be seen as an objective, comparative claim that M&L's paint was the most technically advanced on the global market and therefore required substantiation with robust comparative evidence to show that was the case. Because we had not seen such evidence we concluded that the claim in ad (b) had not been substantiated and was misleading.
We investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. 3.6 3.6 Subjective claims must not mislead the consumer; marketing communications must not imply that expressions of opinion are objective claims. (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 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other Comparisons) but did not find it in breach.
Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. 3.6 3.6 Subjective claims must not mislead the consumer; marketing communications must not imply that expressions of opinion are objective claims. (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 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other Comparisons).
Action
No further action required in relation to ad (a).
Ad (b) must not appear again in its current form. We told Marston and Langinger to exercise caution when making "best" claims and advised them to seek guidance from CAP's Copy Advice team.
