Ad description
A TV ad for the Nissan Leaf electric car opened with a hand connecting a yellow plug into a power socket: the voice-over stated, "What if this is the fuel of the future?" Next the ad cut to the outside of a house: the voice-over continued, "The petrol station of the future." The ad then showed a smartphone displaying a climate control screen – the holder of the phone touched the screen and the screen showed a fan beginning to spin. On-screen text during this scene stated, "WiFi required. Running costs may vary depending on energy prices and usage. For full details visit www.nissan.co.uk/leafcalculations. Combined cycle. 339mpg equivalent. £186 annual fuel costs." The voice-over continued, "The dashboard of the future." The phone was pressed again and switched to a screen showing "339mpg equivalent". The voice-over stated, "The miles per gallon... " The calculate button on the phone screen was pressed and the screen displayed "£186 annual fuel costs". The voice-over stated, "... and the annual fuel costs of the future."
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "339mpg equivalent" was misleading.
Response
Nissan Motor (GB) Ltd (Nissan) said the Nissan LEAF was a revolutionary 100% electric car offering very substantial savings on running costs when compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. The miles per gallon equivalent figure was one way in which Nissan aimed to communicate to consumers the Nissan LEAF's breakthrough technology. They did not believe that the miles per gallon equivalent figure was misleading. The figure was carefully calculated and the methodology was agreed upon by Clearcast. Furthermore, the TV ad prominently referred viewers to where on the LEAF's website they could find a full explanation of the claim and how it was calculated. The ad also included the qualifying text, "running costs may vary depending on energy prices and usage".
Nissan supplied a detailed explanation of how the claim was calculated. In simple terms the miles per gallon equivalent figure stated how far consumers would be able to go in a Nissan LEAF for the price of a gallon of petrol. It was based on taking the cost of a gallon of petrol and calculating how many times the LEAF could be fully charged for that cost, multiplied by how far the LEAF could go on a full charge.
Clearcast added that there was currently no measure in the UK to allow comparison of petrol cars with alternative fuel vehicles recognised by government or commonly accepted by the automobile trade. In this context, Clearcast were content that the methodology used by Nissan, which compared the cost of petrol and electricity, was a reasonable way of measuring the relative costs of travelling using petrol and electricity to power a car. However, given that the calculations relied on certain assumptions, about the prices of petrol and electricity to consumers, Clearcast considered that viewers should be able to access more information on the methodology used by Nissan. To this end, the on-screen text "For full details visit www.nissan.co.uk/leafcalculations" directed viewers to the website, where the calculations were outlined in more detail. Furthermore, the on-screen text "Running costs may vary depending on energy prices and usage" qualified the miles per gallon equivalent claim and alerted viewers to the fact that changes in electricity and fuel prices would affect the figure.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the ad included a web address that directed viewers to further information on how the 'miles per gallon equivalent' figure was calculated. In the absence of a recognised methodology for comparing the cost of powering a car with electricity against the cost with petrol, we considered Nissan's comparison was reasonable. Furthermore, in light of the ad's signpost to the website for further information on the calculations, the ad was unlikely to mislead viewers. For these reasons we concluded that the ad had not breached the Code.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Substantiation) and 3.12 3.12 Marketing communications must not present rights given to consumers in law as a distinctive feature of the marketer's offer. (Exaggeration) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
