Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A local press ad for Unchain the Brighton Motorist was headed "Unchain the Brighton motorist! Join our campaign" and further text included "We're a diverse group of businesses and traders all concerned about the long term impact of the City Council's present transport policy".
A section of the ad headed "Christmas shoppers make the most of FREE Sunday parking" stated "A story in Monday's edition of the Argus quoted visitors, who were staying longer in the city because of the chance to park free, and traders who said their businesses had received a boost thanks to free parking".
A section headed "Public give views at Lewes Road meeting" stated "Unchain members attended a public meeting about the Lewes Road corridor … Hosted by Simon Kirby MP, it was clear that the vast majority did not support or want the Lewes Road corridor".
A section headed "And finally ..." stated "Interesting to see the page two story in yesterday's edition of The Argus with the headline: "Cycle crashes increase despite 20mph limits ..."".
Issue
Brighton & Hove City Council challenged whether the claims:
1. "businesses had received a boost thanks to free parking" could be substantiated;
2. "it was clear the vast majority did not support or want the Lewes Road corridor" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
3. "Cycle crashes increase despite 20mph limits" was misleading, because they believed that the crashes referred to took place on roads with both 30 mph as well as 20 mph speed limits.
Response
1. Unchain the Brighton Motorist said the ad did not make specific claims but clearly referred to a newspaper article, an online copy of which they provided, and quoted directly from it. They said the anecdotal quotes they referred to related to an upturn in trade which was attributed to the free Sunday parking. They said they used the word "boost" deliberately because it was imprecise, and they did not believe that readers would necessarily understand from the claim that business had seen an increase in takings or profits. They referred to some other ways in which boost might be understood, such as an increase in morale or confidence. They provided an e-mail from the Chairman of a small businesses group which said that businesses in central Brighton had received a boost from the free Sunday parking in the run up to Christmas on various fronts, such as in increase in confidence and encouragement to increase their marketing. The e-mail also said businesses had reported an increase in visitors on Sundays in comparison to the number expected.
2. Unchain the Brighton Motorist said the claim in the ad specifically referred to the level of the support at the public meeting, rather than the overall level of public support. They said that two members of Unchain the Brighton Motorist were present at that meeting. They said that following receipt of the complaint they contacted the MP who hosted the meeting and a councillor who was present to obtain their view. They supplied copies of the e-mailed responses from both and said these supported the claim. They also provided a copy of the pre-publicity for the meeting, which referred to the MP being "inundated" with messages from constituents who were worried about safety on the road. They said this demonstrated that even if a majority were in support of the scheme at planning stage, the picture could change after implementation.
3. Unchain the Brighton Motorist said the wording in the ad was very specific in referring to a newspaper article. They said they did not have a paper copy of the article but provided a copy of an online article from the newspaper which they said was very similar in wording. They said they had quoted accurately from the article and had not commented on the claim or drawn any conclusions from it, they had merely noted it was "interesting". They therefore did not believe it was relevant whether or not the crashes referred to took place on roads with both 30 mph as well as 20 mph speed limits.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the claim "businesses had received a boost thanks to free parking" appeared in the context of the sentence "A story in Monday's edition of the Argus quoted visitors, who were staying longer in the city because of the chance to park free, and traders who said their businesses had received a boost thanks to free parking". We therefore considered it was clear that the claim was based on the quotes in the newspaper article. We considered that readers would understand from the claim that anecdotally some businesses said they had seen more footfall or sales than they expected, rather than as a claim that there had been a general or measurable increase in trade. Because the newspaper article included a quote from a business owner who said that their business had benefited from the free parking we considered that the claim had been substantiated.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
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.
and
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) 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) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered that the ad made clear that the claim "it was clear the vast majority did not support or want the Lewes Road corridor" was a reference to the level of support at the recent public meeting, rather than a reference to the level of public support in general. We understood that two members of Unchain the Brighton Motorist had been present at the meeting and has based the claim on their opinion and recollection of the level of support expressed. The e-mails they provided from other parties who had been present supported their claim and stated that they recalled only three people speaking in favour of the scheme and estimated that 80% of those present were 'against' the scheme. We also considered that a claim which related to the strength of feeling and opinions expressed at a public meeting included an element of subjective opinion, and that readers would be aware of that. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
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.
and
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) 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) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We understood the claim was a direct quotation from a newspaper headline, and we considered the ad made this clear. We did not consider that the quotation implied that all streets on which the cycle crashes occurred had 20 mph limits, and therefore considered it was unlikely to mislead readers on that basis. We therefore concluded the claim was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under 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) 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) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
