Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, one was Not upheld and three were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims, seen in March 2015, on two websites for a sheathing board product.
a. Claims on www.siniat.co.uk GTEC Weather Defence External Sheathing Board product page stated "TWICE AS FAST TO INSTALL THAN CEMENT PARTICLE BOARDS ... GTEC Weather Defence is a faster, safer way to a weather tight building compared to traditional sheathing board products ...". The page included a video entitled "The Race: Gtec Weather Defence vs Cement Particle Boards" in which a two-man team of installers were timed fitting the Weather Defence Board to a steel frame and fitting cement bonded particle boards to the same frame.
b. www.gtecweatherdefence.co.uk included a number of videos. One was headed "STRONG MAN VS GTEC WEATHER DEFENCE" in which a man was shown performing a shoulder press with a cement bonded board and then lifting three Weather Defence boards in a similar manner. The presenter said, "Siniat GTEC Weather defence Board is 33 per cent lighter than ordinary cement particle boards." On-screen text stated "33% LIGHTER THAN CEMENT PARTICLE BOARDS" and "EASIER TO LIFT, MOVE AND FIX". On the "CALCULATE YOUR COSTS" page text stated "GTEC Weather Defence costs less to install than other sheathing boards per square metre". Text stated "ENTER YOUR SHEATHING BOARD REQUIREMENTS" with a "CALCULATE" button. A breakdown of how the cost was calculated was included underneath.
Issue
Euroform Products Ltd challenged whether:
1. the claim "TWICE AS FAST TO INSTALL THAN CEMENT PARTICLE BOARDS" and the video in ad (a) were misleading, because they believed the comparative race had not been conducted fairly;
2. the claim "GTEC Weather Defence is a ... safer way to a weather tight building compared to traditional sheathing board products " in ad (a) was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. the video in ad (b) misleadingly implied the GTEC Weather Board was three times lighter than cement particle boards, because it showed the man struggling to lift a cement particle board compared to three Weather Boards; and
4. the basis for the savings displayed in the sheathing board calculator in ad (b) was misleading.
Response
1. Siniat said the claim “TWICE AS FAST TO INSTALL THAN CEMENT PARTICLE BOARDS” was based on the comparative race results shown in the video in ad (a), as well as customer testimonials. The video was commissioned from an independent production company with the object of filming a team of third-party installers fitting the GTEC Weather Defence External Sheathing Board (GTEC) to a steel frame and then fitting equivalent cement bonded particle boards (CPBs) to the same frame. Siniat said in order to ensure that no bias was given to GTEC over CPBs they used a professional dry lining company who used both GTEC and CPBs on commercial projects and the team of installers had extensive experience in the use and assembly of CPBs on steel frame strictures. They used identically-sized boards of both products and followed the manufacturers’ guidelines for installation for both products. Two fixed locations were used for the filming, one inside the warehouse for the installation process and the other outside, as suggested by health and safety best practice, to show the CPB cutting site.
Siniat explained that, as shown in the video, the total time to complete the installation using GTEC was 29 minutes and 51 seconds, whereas the time to complete for the CPBs was 1 hour 20 minutes and 41 seconds. Based on those results, the installation time for GTEC was 2.7 times faster than that of the CPB installation, but they used the more modest “TWICE AS FAST” claim, because they believed it was a more powerful statement.
2. Siniat said the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) had published a range of information, raising awareness of the hazards associated with the use of circular saws, which as manufacturer of both CPBs as well as GTEC, they believed was the most common method of cutting CPBs on a construction site. Other than possible injuries to hands, lifting and carrying the equipment, electrical safety and working at a height with the equipment, the HSE also identified dust created by such power tools and recommended the use of extraction to control dust and reduce the risk of ill health. Siniat explained that GTEC was easy to cut with a Stanley knife and without the need for a circular saw.
3. Siniat said the claim “33% LIGHTER THAN CEMENT PARTICLE BOARDS” in the video (ad b) was based on an analysis of the three leading CPBs on the market. The average weight per sheet, which was used to reflect the actual weight that construction workers would lift on site, was 47.6 kg compared with 31kg for GTEC, which was a difference of 35%. In order to reflect the weight defined by a given area (square metres) they averaged the board weight and weight per square metre and arrived at 33%.
4. Siniat said a detailed breakdown of the installation cost savings and the calculation method were displayed on the “CALCULATE YOUR COSTS” page. The breakdown included materials, such as board costs, sealants, screws, as well as labour costs, which accounted for 50% of the savings.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA watched videos of both installations in real time rather than the edited version shown in ad (a). We were satisfied that the team of installers gave no preference to either product while working on the installations.
We noted the cutting of the CPB took place immediately outside the installation location. We understood that sawing CPBs was likely to produce high levels of dust; product safety information advised that good ventilation was required to avoid possibly hazardous amounts of dust. We acknowledged that on some sites there might be adequate ventilation to cut the boards next to the installation location, but considered it was clear from the video that the installations were taking place in a closed building and therefore, for health and safety reasons, the boards would need to be cut outside for good air circulation. We considered the cutting operation was not of such a distance away from the installation as to be unrealistic or to exaggerate the CPB installation process.
We noted Euroform Products objected to breather membrane being fitted to the CPB in the comparative race, because they argued that it was not needed for all installations. We understood that breather membranes were used in wall construction to protect the sheathing layer from external moisture and, because CPBs contained wood particles that were likely to absorb moisture from the atmosphere, the membranes were commonly installed to protect the board and building from moisture whilst allowing water vapour to escape. Although there might be situations when it was not required, we considered, because breather membrane was more likely to be fitted than not, that it was fair to include it in a comparison with a product that did not require the use of the membrane.
We considered that the comparative race had been conducted fairly and concluded that the claim "TWICE AS FAST TO INSTALL THAN CEMENT PARTICLE BOARDS" and video were unlikely to mislead.
On this point, 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. (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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
We understood that the claim “a safer way to a weather tight building compared to traditional sheathing board products” was based on the different types of tools required to cut CPBs and GTEC, and the need for adequate ventilation when sawing CPBs.
We noted, unlike CPBs, GTEC did not require power tools and could be cut with a Stanley knife. We noted the HSE advice on using circular saws and the obvious possible repercussions of using such machinery, but also understood that using a Stanley knife was not risk free. We also understood that cutting CPBs produced a significant amount of dust, whereas dust levels for GTEC were minimal. However, although the web page referred to “no power tools” and “no dust”, the page also referred to the product being fire resistant and it was unclear whether the claim referred to the installation process or the safety of the product once it had been installed.
We acknowledged that a product that did not require power tools to cut and produced less dust was likely to be considered a “safer” option, but the basis for the claim needed to be explained so that traders could assess whether those elements were a significant factor in determining whether GTEC was a safer alternative for them or indeed whether the claim was a reference to fire safety.
We therefore concluded that, because the basis was unclear, the claim “[a] safer way to a weather tight building compared to traditional sheathing board products” was likely to mislead.
On this point, ad (a) breached 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) and 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
3. Upheld
We understood that one GTEC board was lighter than one CPB and, based on Siniat’s calculations, was 67% the weight of a CPB. However, the video showed the man using the same amount of energy in lifting three GTEC boards as he had in lifting one CPB, which we considered gave the impression that the product was three times lighter than one CPB, which was clearly not the case. We therefore concluded that the video gave a misleading impression of the weight of the GTEC board.
On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
4. Upheld
We noted the page explained in detail how the savings claims had been calculated, including the cost of screws, foil tape, sealant and breather membrane, and labour costs. We understood the labour costs had been calculated based on interviews with contractors on five different job sites who assessed the average time saved using GTEC compared with using CPBs on the same project. The installers estimated fitting twice the volume of GTEC boards in a given time, which Siniat believed was a time saving of 50% and calculated the labour costs on the average of the installers’ breather membrane (CPB) labour costs.
We acknowledged that some labour time was likely to be saved, but understood that labour costs were likely to vary from site to site. We considered that basing the labour cost savings and the amount of time saved on anecdotal estimates from contractors on only five sites was not a reliable method to work out any likely monetary saving. We therefore considered that the substantiation to support the labour cost savings was not sufficiently robust and, because the labour costs accounted for 50% of the savings claim, we concluded that the basis for the savings displayed in the sheathing board calculator was misleading.
On this point, the ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 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), 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) and 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in their current form. We told Siniat to ensure that their claims did not exaggerate the relative weight of GTEC boards, claims of safety were suitably qualified and that savings claims were based on robust substantiation.
