Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on Lead Generation Marketing, identified for investigation, following intelligence gathered by the ASA.
See also related rulings published on 1 February 2023.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad and page for blogger Emily Harding; and two websites for MPJ Invest Ltd t/a Moneysaving tricks, seen in August 2022:
a. The paid-for Facebook post by Emily Harding featured an image of a man and a woman, who both appeared to be over 50 years of age, sitting at a table with a second woman stood next to them. All three appeared to look at the mobile held by the woman seated in the centre of the image. Text above the image stated “Why don’t more mums know about this? Mums in their 50s could now qualify for family protection worth £41,438 or more. Just answer a few questions and MoneySavingTricks.co.uk finds the best life policies in minutes. Here is the link to see what you could get (pointing down finger emoji)”. Below the image in a box titled “MONEYSAVINGTRICKS.CO.UK”, text in bold stated “Life Insurance for 50+ Mums worth £41,438” and “New life insurance policy for dads over 50 could pay £41,438 or more to you …” and “Learn more”, which linked through to ad (b).
b. A page on the website www.moneysavingtricks.co.uk featured an image of a woman and a man who were looking at each other. The woman had her arms around the man. Text above the image stated “Thousands Of UK Seniors Now Qualify for £41,438. Check below to see what you could get”. Below the image, text stated “With MoneySavingTricks.co.uk you can get a quick quote within minutes. So it’s never been easier to see what you could get! To make sure you don’t miss out, follow the steps below and start protecting your family today”. Beneath was a question in bold “Are you a UK resident” with “yes/no” options which linked through to ad (c). Text followed, which stated “With MoneySavingTricks.co.uk it’s easy to get a free quote and see what you could get. It only takes 56 seconds to see the policies you never realized [sic] you qualify for” and “Step #1 – are you a UK resident” followed by “Step #2 – Answer a few short questions (it takes under a minute) and you will be connected to the most affordable life insurance policies you never realized you qualify for”. Further down the page text stated “Compare quotes from leading life insurance providers” with logos of various well-known insurance companies. Interspersed between this text were two links titled “yes I want to see what I qualify for” that linked through to ad (c). At the bottom of the page a black banner with white text stated “MoneySavingTricks.co.uk provides an option for UK residents to get life insurance quotes from vetted, FCA authorised brokers and insurers”.
c. Another page on the website www.moneysavingtricks.co.uk featured text in bold “Get your free quote and start protecting your family’s future” Beneath that, a box shaped by blue dots contained text “Do you currently have life insurance” with “yes/no” answer boxes. That question linked through to seven further questions before reaching a page with text “It’s time to get your free quotes! Please enter your name”. That page featured six insurance brand logos at the top of the page. Further down the page text stated “As Seen in” followed by logos for five media publishers. Below that was a list of five statements with a tick symbol before them including “Cover worth £291,893 or more”, “Trusted by thousands” and “Advisers regulated by FCA (Financial Conduct Authority)”.
d. The Facebook page for Emily Harding featured a banner stating “EMILY’S SAVING TIPS. SAVE. INVEST. PROTECT”. Below that was a head-shot image of a woman next to text stating “Emily Harding Blogger” A section titled Bio stated “Emily Harding is a professional blogger with passion for financial topics”. Within the feed section, a post, dated 1 April, featured an image of two people sitting on a sofa looking in a notebook and on a laptop. Below the image was a link to a third-party financial website and an article titled "Should I buy life insurance?" Beneath that was another post with a silhouette image of four people holding hands, with text “THE LOVE IN OUR FAMILY flows strong and deep leaving us memories to treasure and keep”. The photos section of the page contained a number of motivational, life images and quotes. The history section of the page stated that it was created on 10 August 2022.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
1. ads (a) and (d) were misleading because they falsely implied they were published by a blogger named Emily Harding rather than MJP Invest;
2. the claims “Why don’t more mums know about this”, “Mums in their 50s could now qualify”, “New life insurance for Dads over 50” and the website name “MoneySavingTricks” in ad (a), were misleading because they falsely implied that the product being offered was only recently available and was more special than it was;
3. ads (a), (b) and (c) were misleading because they falsely implied the advertiser’s website was a comparison service that could directly provide online life insurance quotes, rather than a lead generation service;
4. ads (b) and (c) misleadingly implied that the advertiser used FCA-regulated advisors; and
5. the claim “As seen in” followed by recognisable publisher logos in ad (c) misleadingly implied the advertiser had been positively reviewed in those publications.
Response
1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.
JNB leads responding for MPJ Invest Ltd said that in August 2022 they had taken over all the advertising accounts for MPJ Invest, and that the company was no longer in the advertising business. They said they had reviewed the advertising material highlighted to them and had withdrawn the ads.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged MJP Invest’s willingness to make changes to their advertising. We considered that the Facebook page and associated paid-for Facebook ad would be interpreted by consumers as having been created by an independent financial blogger called ‘Emily Harding’.
We considered that ad (a) and (d) contained elements that were likely to give consumers the impression they were created by an individual called ‘Emily Harding’, whose job was to write blogs that gave financial advice and tips to save money. In particular, within ad (d) the use of the banner “EMILY’S SAVING TIPS. SAVE. INVEST. PROTECT” along with the bio section containing the statement “Emily Harding is a professional blogger” implied that she had some experience or additional knowledge about financial matters and how to save money. We therefore considered that consumers would interpret the post on 1 April “Should I buy life insurance...?” to be an article recommended by an independent financial blogger. We noted the use of motivational, life photos and quotes that also populated the feed and the photo section of the page, and we considered that added to the impression that it was a personal Facebook profile.
We considered that consumers would interpret ad (a) the paid-for Facebook post, as a recommendation from ‘Emily Harding’, and that advice was given by an independent financial blogger. We considered that advice and suggestions from an independent financial blogger would be influential in a consumer’s decision as to whether the financial advice could be trusted or not.
However, we understood that the Facebook page and promoted ad had been created by MJP Invest, rather than by an independent financial blogger named Emily Harding. We therefore concluded they were likely to mislead.
On that point, ads (a) and (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
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).#
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand claims made in ad (a) “Why don’t more mums know about this? Mums in their 50s could now qualify for family protection worth £41,438 or more”, and “New life insurance for Dads over 50 could pay £41,438 or more to you” to mean that there were new money saving products, specifically family protection and life insurance, that had only recently become available within the insurance market for parents within those particular age-groups. We considered the use of the phrase “Why don’t more mums know about this” along with a shocked face emoji implied that the blogger had known something that consumers would be unaware of, and that would be beneficial to those in the specified age groups and categories seeking life insurance.
Since we had not received evidence relating to any newly available insurance products, or that the referenced products had any special characteristics as implied by the ad, we considered that the claims in ad (a) had not been substantiated. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications 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) and
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. Upheld
We considered that the claims in ad (a), “life insurance for 50+ Mums worth £41,438” and “New life insurance policy for dads over 50 could pay £41,438” in conjunction with “just a few questions and Moneysavingtricks.co.uk find the best life policies in minutes” accompanied by links to ‘Learn more’, would be interpreted by consumers to mean that they would be able to obtain quotes for life insurance directly from the Moneysaving tricks website, ad (b).
The website homepage (ad b) included, “With MoneySavingTricks.co.uk you can get a quick quote within minutes” as well as “It only takes 56 seconds to see the policies you never realized you qualify for”, below which was the claim “Compare quotes from leading life insurance providers” along with a known insurance brand logo. The homepage linked through to a quote generation page, ad (c), which contained text “Get your free quote and start protecting your family’s future”, followed by a series of question boxes. We considered that consumers would understand those web pages were part of a life insurance comparison site where they could obtain customised life insurance quotes instantly based on the personal details they submitted. We considered that the use of the logos of six well-known insurance brands in this context reinforced the impression that it was a comparison website where quotes would be provided from a range of companies based on the details they submitted.
However, we understood that the website was operated by a lead generation firm, which instead sold consumers’ details to third parties who had paid to receive leads generated by the ad. Because Money Saving Tricks misleadingly presented itself as life insurance quote provider and did not make clear they were collecting personal information for lead generation purposes, we considered the ads falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade, and did not make clear their commercial intent. We concluded that the ad was misleading and breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
2.3
2.3
Marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession; marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context.
(Recognition of marketing communications), and
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
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).
4. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claims in ad (b) “get life insurance quotes from vetted, FCA authorised brokers and insurers” and ad (c) “Advisers regulated by FCA (Financial Conduct Authority)” to mean that the advertiser used advisers who had been through a formal process of vetting and accreditation undertaken by the Financial Conduct Authority. We considered they would understand that those advisers gave advice that was in some way approved by the UK’s financial regulator and was therefore more reliable and could be trusted.
We did not receive any evidence that the advisers for Money Saving Tricks were vetted, accredited or regulated by the FCA, therefore we concluded the ads were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
5. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand “As seen in” followed by recognisable publisher logos to mean that Money Saving Tricks had been positively reviewed in those publications that were referenced.Money Saving Tricks did not provide any evidence that they had been featured in any of those publications, therefore we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (misleading advertising) and 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).
Action
The ads must not appear in the form complained of. We told MPJ Invest to ensure that future marketing communications did not give the overall impression that they were written by personal individuals who were independent from their business. We also told them not to falsely imply that their products being offered were only recently available and were more special than they were. We told them to ensure they did not falsely imply they were acting for purposes outside of their trade, and to ensure that their future marketing communications made clear that their purpose was to gather consumer’s personal information for lead generation. We further told them to ensure they did not claim their advisers were accredited, approved or vetted by the FCA, and to ensure that they did not make claims that their products had appeared in well-known publications when they had not.
