Background

Summary of Council decision:

Seven issues were investigated, of which four were Upheld and three were Not upheld.

Ad description

A TV ad, a national press ad and a magazine ad, for Duracell Ultra Power with Duralock batteries:

a. The TV ad, for Duracell Ultra Power with Duralock batteries, featured a Duracell battery powered bunny and 12 zinc battery powered gorillas playing the drums under spotlights. The voice-over stated, "You all know Duracell last longer than leading zinc batteries, but exactly how much longer?" The ad showed the gorillas freezing and their spotlights going out whilst the Duracell bunny played on. On-screen text stated "* Based on alkaline Duracell Ultra Power AA vs. Kodak ZnCl AA, Panasonic ZnC & ZnCl AA and Sony ZnCl AA batteries as tested in digital cameras. Results may vary by device" The voice-over stated, "Not even 12 leading zinc batteries can outlast one new Duracell Ultra Power with Duralock." The ad then showed the bunny stood by a Duracell battery in front of a line of 12 zinc batteries. The accompanying voice-over stated, "That's one equals 12." The final sequence showed a Duracell battery on its own and the voice-over and on-screen text stated "Duracell. Lasts longer, much longer*".

b. The national press ad, featured an image of the Duracell bunny holding the advertised product, beside which text stated "LAST UP TO 12 TIMES LONGER THAN LEADING ZINC BATTERIES. SO BUY WISELY!" Further text stated "When shopping for batteries, those cheaper, large packs of zinc seem like a good deal. But when you compare them with New Duracell Ultra, which now last 12 times as long, you're actually getting less power for your pound. If you really want to grab a bargain try New Duracell Ultra. They're the longest-lasting alkaline battery". Text at the foot of the ad stated "vs leading Zinc batteries. Based on Duracell Ultra Power AA vs Kodak ZnCl-AA, Panasonic ZnC & ZnCl AA and Sony ZnCl AA batteries as tested in digital cameras. Results may vary by device".

c. The magazine ad, featured an image of the Duracell bunny holding the advertised product and an image of a character holding a digital camera. Text beneath the images stated "New Duracell Ultra last up to 12X longer than leading zinc batteries* When shopping for batteries, it's natural to focus on a good deal. But those cheaper zinc batteries just can't compete with New Duracell Ultra, which last up to 12 times longer. And that's better value for money. So if you want a reason to smile for the camera try New Duracell Ultra. They're the longest-lasting alkaline battery". Text at the right-hand side of the ad stated "vs leading Zinc batteries. Based on Duracell Ultra Power AA vs. Kodak ZnCl AA, Panasonic ZnC & ZnCl AA and Sony ZnCl AA batteries as tested in digital cameras. Results may vary by device".

Issue

Thirty-eight complainants challenged whether the comparison in the ad was misleading:

1. A number of complainants, including Energizer Group Ltd (EGL) and Strand Europe Ltd (Strand Europe), challenged whether ad (a) included a fair comparison, because it compared alkaline batteries with zinc batteries.

2. Further complainants, including EGL and Strand Europe, challenged whether ad (a) presented a fair comparison, because they believed it was not appropriate to test zinc batteries in a digital camera.

3. The majority of complainants, including EGL, challenged whether ad (a) misleadingly implied that one Duracell battery lasted longer than 12 zinc batteries consecutively used.

EGL and Strand Europe also challenged whether:

4. ads (b) and (c) included a fair comparison, because they compared alkaline batteries with zinc batteries; and

5. ads (b) and (c) presented a fair comparison, because they believed it was not appropriate to test zinc batteries in a digital camera.

EGL also challenged whether:

6. ads (b) and (c) misleadingly implied that one Duracell battery lasted longer than 12 zinc batteries consecutively used; and

7. the reference to battery operated toys, in ad (a), was misleading because the comparison test used a different type of device.

Response

1. & 2. Procter & Gamble UK (P&G) acknowledged that the IEC regulations did not include a test for zinc batteries in digital cameras and that, in the IEC regulations, carbon zinc batteries were not specified to operate digital cameras. However, they considered the technical test standard was irrelevant to the comparison in the ad. They said consumers were not aware of the difference between the performance of zinc and alkaline batteries and which battery they should use in high-drain devices such as digital cameras and provided evidence that they argued supported that conclusion. They believed consumers were persuaded to buy branded batteries, such as those offered by Kodak, Sony and Panasonic, and said the ad sought to highlight the performance difference between the advertised product and those batteries. They argued that the lack of consumer awareness meant a large number of consumers would use carbon zinc batteries in digital cameras. They therefore believed it was acceptable to compare the advertised product with zinc batteries.

P&G pointed out that on-screen text made clear that ad (a) depicted a comparison between Duracell Ultra Power and a number of branded zinc batteries, when tested in digital cameras. They said text made clear that results may vary by device.

Clearcast pointed out that the voice-over and on-screen text made clear that the comparison was between the advertised product and leading zinc batteries. They believed ad (a) compared products that met the same need or intended purpose and said the products had been tested under the same conditions and across the same devices. They therefore believed the ad presented a fair comparison.

Clearcast understood from their consultant that zinc batteries were not typically recommended for digital cameras. However, they believed the consumer research provided by P&G demonstrated that zinc batteries were regularly purchased by consumers. They therefore believed the ad presented a fair comparison because it reflected consumers' habits for using batteries.

3. & 6. P&G provided test data that they believed substantiated the claims. They said the testing demonstrated that the advertised product lasted more than 14 times longer than the best performing zinc battery when used in a Furby toy and 46 times longer than the best performing zinc battery when used in a digital camera.

Clearcast believed the evidence supplied by P&G was sufficient to substantiate the claim that one Duracell battery lasted longer than 12 zinc batteries used consecutively.

4. & 5. P&G referred to their response on points 1 and 2, and also pointed out that ads (b) and (c) made clear that they depicted a comparison between Duracell Ultra Power and a number of branded zinc batteries, when tested in digital cameras. They said text also made clear that results may vary by device.

7. P&G said the ad included no reference to battery operated toys. They said the drumming gorillas were an illustration of the fact that Duracell batteries lasted more than 12 times the duration of a zinc battery.

Assessment

1. & 4. Not upheld

The ASA noted the voice-over in ad (a) stated, "Not even 12 leading zinc batteries can outlast one new Duracell Ultra Power with Duralock ... That's one equals 12". That presentation was qualified by on-screen text that made clear that the comparison was between the advertised product and various zinc batteries as tested in digital cameras and that results may vary by device.

The headline claim in ad (b) stated "LAST UP TO 12 TIMES LONGER THAN LEADING ZINC BATTERIES". Further text stated "New Duracell Ultra, which now last 12 times as long". Small text at the foot of the ad made clear that the comparison was between the advertised product and various zinc batteries as tested in digital cameras and that results may vary by device.

Ad (c) included the headline claim "New Duracell Ultra last up to 12X longer than leading zinc batteries*". The claim was linked to small text on the right-hand side of the ad that made clear that the basis of the comparison was between the advertised product and various zinc batteries as tested in digital cameras and that results may vary by device. Further text in the body of the ad stated "So if you want a reason to smile for the camera try New Duracell Ultra" and the ad included an image of the Duracell Bunny and a man each holding a digital camera.

In the context of prominent headline claims about the superior performance of the advertised product in comparison to zinc batteries and the significantly less prominent text stating that the comparison was based on tests in a digital camera and that results may vary, we considered consumers would understand ads (a) and (b) compared the performance of the advertised product with zinc batteries, in general usage, based on tests on a representative device. We considered consumers would understand ad (c) made a similar comparison, but that the superior performance of the advertised product was achievable when used in digital cameras.

The Codes required that ads compared products meeting the same need or intended for the same purpose. Alkaline and zinc batteries were outwardly identical and could be used in the same appliances, including digital cameras. We understood that consumers used both zinc and alkaline batteries in digital cameras and noted P&G provided consumer research that showed consumers had used zinc batteries in digital cameras.

Whilst there were differences between zinc and alkaline batteries, we considered both types of battery were intended to power devices. As such, we considered the ads compared products meeting the same need or intended for the same purpose. We therefore concluded that the ads did not breach the Code on points 1 and 4 of the complaint.

On points 1 and 4, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising) and  3.34 3.34 Advertisements must compare products or services meeting the same need or intended for the same purpose.  (Comparisons) but did not find it to be in breach. On points one and four, we investigated ads (b) and (c) under CAP Code rules (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising) and  3.34 3.34 Advertisements must compare products or services meeting the same need or intended for the same purpose.  (Comparisons) but did not find them to be in breach.

2., 3., 5. & 6. Upheld

As noted in the assessment on points 1 and 4, we considered consumers would understand ads (a) and (b) compared the performance of the advertised product with the performance of zinc batteries, in general usage, based on tests on a representative device. We considered consumers would understand ad (c) made a similar comparison, but that the superior performance of the advertised product was achievable when used in digital cameras.

P&G provided consumer research that they believed demonstrated a lack of consumer awareness of the difference between the performance of zinc and alkaline batteries and that a large number of consumers would use zinc batteries in digital cameras. In that context, they believed the comparison in the ad was fair and not likely to mislead. The research showed that a percentage of consumers who had purchased zinc batteries in a 12-month period considered those batteries suitable for use in a digital camera and that a percentage of consumers who had purchased zinc batteries in the same period had used those batteries in a digital camera. We acknowledged P&G's views about the lack of consumer awareness of the performance difference between alkaline and zinc batteries. However, we considered the presentation of the comparison of the performance of the advertised product and zinc batteries in the ads was likely to mislead consumers.

P&G submitted two test reports which they believed supported the claim that one Duracell battery lasted longer than 12 zinc batteries used consecutively.

The first test report related to a test of the advertised product in a Furby toy, which we understood to be a medium-drain device. The report showed that the advertised product lasted 12 times longer than zinc batteries in two out of the three zinc battery brands used in the comparison, but less than 12 times in the third zinc battery brand.

We understood that, in the relevant International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) regulations, carbon zinc batteries were not specified to operate digital cameras. The IEC was the global organisation that prepared and published international standards for electrical, electronic and related technologies. The second test report showed that the advertised product lasted more than 12 times longer than the zinc batteries used in the comparison when tested in a digital camera in accordance with the IEC regulations.

We were concerned that, in and of itself, the test data provided was not sufficient to substantiate the superior performance claim in relation to the general usage of the advertised product in comparison to zinc batteries. We had seen no evidence to demonstrate that the performance claim could be substantiated for a comparison between zinc and alkaline batteries when used in low-drain devices and understood that the superior performance claim was unlikely to be maintained in such a comparison.

We considered the test data provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that the advertised product lasted longer than 12 leading zinc batteries consecutively used, in general usage, based on tests on a representative device. We therefore concluded that the ads were misleading.

On point 3, ad (a) breached 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) and  3.33 3.33 Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service.  and  3.35 3.35 Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price.  (Comparisons). On point 6, ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code rules (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  3.33 3.33 Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service.  and  3.35 3.35 Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price.  (Comparisons).

7. Not upheld

Ad (a) featured the claim "Not even 12 leading zinc batteries can outlast one new Duracell Ultra Power with Duralock" and showed gorillas freezing and their spotlights going out whilst the Duracell bunny played on. In that context, we considered consumers would understand the use of gorillas was a visual representation of the claim and would not be viewed as a comparison of the performance of the batteries in battery operated toys specifically. We therefore considered ad (a) was not likely to mislead on this point of complaint.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising), but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Proctor & Gamble UK to ensure that future ads made sufficiently clear the basis of the comparison and to ensure that the presentation of comparisons was not likely to mislead consumers.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.33     3.34     3.35     3.9    

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.33     3.34     3.35     3.7    


More on