Ad description
A website and TV ad for a vacuum cleaner.
a. The website stated "Air ... Designed in Britain by an iconic British company, the Vax Air range is the result of over 30 years expertise in designing intelligent floorcare solutions for UK home ...". The bottom of the page featured images of three products. Under the product "Air" text stated "The lightest multi cyclonic upright in the world ... Weighs less than 5kg…”.
b. The TV ad showed a woman dancing across the screen while a voice-over stated "Performance is everything. The product was shown and the voice-over further stated "This is the remarkable Vax Air, designed in Britain by an iconic British company. It is the lightest multi cyclonic upright in the world. With powerful consistent suction for efficient cleaning ..." On-screen text stated "Lightest only 5.5kg" and "powerful 200 air watts" and showed a woman lifting the product up with one hand.
Issue
Dyson Ltd (Dyson) challenged whether:
1. the claim "Designed in Britain by an iconic British company" in ads (a) and (b) were misleading, because they believed Vax was owned by TechTonic Industries who were based in Hong Kong;
2. the claim "Weighs less than 5kg" in ad (a) was misleading, because they believed the Air product weighed 5.5 kg;
3. the claim "the lightest upright multi cyclonic vacuum cleaner in the world" in ads (a) and (b) was misleading because they believed the Air product weighed 5.5 kg and the Dyson DC24 weighed 5.4 kg.
4. They also challenged whether the image of the women in ad (b) lifting the product with one hand misleadingly implied the product was lighter than it was.
Response
1. Vax Ltd (Vax) said they were founded in Worcestershire in 1977, manufactured their first vacuum cleaner there in 1979 and currently had nearly 200 British national employees. They said, although they were currently owned by TechTronic Industries in Hong Kong, the product shown in the ad was designed by British nationals in Worcestershire, UK. They attached a document from Companies House that confirmed the date of incorporation and their current legal status as a British company. They also submitted copies of some early design sketches from their UK design team and an article for a forthcoming magazine, which discussed the UK development of the product. They believed this substantiated that the product was designed in Britain by an iconic British company.
Clearcast said the claim did not focus on where the product was made, but where it was designed. They said Vax's design team worked from their office in Hereford, Herefordshire and that the advertiser had confirmed that the product was also designed here. They believed this substantiated that the product was designed in Britain by an iconic British company.
2. Vax said the product weighed an average of 5.29 kg when stored with the cable wrapped around the unit, and 4.88 kg when used with the cable on the floor. They submitted a test report which they believed substantiated this. They said, in order to clarify the basis of the claim, they had amended their website to state "Weighs less than 5kg in use".
3. Vax said, although the on-screen text in ad (b) stated "Lightest only 5.5kg”, it should have stated "5.3kg" and that this error had been corrected. They submitted some test results which they said demonstrated the product weighed 5.3 kg. They also submitted a table which they believed demonstrated that their product was lighter than any product offered by their competitors.
Clearcast said they had received evidence that demonstrated that the advertised product weighed 5.3 kg, while the Dyson DC24 weighed just over 5.3 kg and, on that basis, approved the claim "the lightest upright multi cyclonic vacuum cleaner in the world".
4. Vax said, although the product shown in ad (b) had its cable removed, it was otherwise an unmodified example. They said it was lifted by an ordinary female who had not been selected on the basis of her physical strength. They said the cable weighed, on average, only 0.41 kg and that even with these included in the total weight of the product, it was easily lifted by an average woman. They submitted six videos showing six different women lifting the product and believed this demonstrated that the image of the women in ad (b), lifting the product with one hand, was not misleading.
Clearcast said the script stated "image of a woman picking up vacuum cleaner with one finger" and Vax confirmed this was possible. They said, although the storyboard did not make clear that the cable would be omitted, they did not believe it would have added any additional weight that would have affected the model's ability to lift it.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA understood from Vax's response that, although Vax was owned by a company based in Hong Kong, they were founded in Britain. We noted the director of New Product Development responded to the complaint and confirmed that the project had been assigned to a member of staff from his UK design team, who was a British national. We also noted the article stated that, while the production of Vax products had moved overseas, all their design and engineering took place in the UK. The Companies House certificate indicated that Vax was registered in Britain. We considered that Vax had demonstrated they were a British company and that the product was designed in Britain and therefore concluded that ads (a) and (b) were not misleading on those grounds.
On this point we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements 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), and ad (b) under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising) and
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), but did not find them in breach.
2. Upheld
We welcomed Vax's assurance that they had amended their website to state "Weighs less than 5kg in use". We noted the independent test report stated that the product weighed between 5.292 kg and 5.297 kg with the cable and between 4.879 kg and 4.887 kg without it. However, we considered readers would generally understand the claim "Weighs less than 5kg" to mean that the product, including its cable, weighed less than 5 kg. In the absence of qualification to clarify that this was not the case, we considered the claim had not been substantiated and concluded that it was misleading.
On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements 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),
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),
3.9
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.
(Qualification).
3. Not upheld
We understood Dyson believed the advertised product weighed 5.5 kg, while their DC24 product weighed 5.4 kg. We noted the test report indicated that, with the cable, the Vax Air weighed a maximum of 5.297 kg, while the spreadsheet indicated that, without the cable, it weighed 4.9 kg. We also noted from the spreadsheet that the Vax Air was lighter than any other cyclonic, upright vacuum cleaners sold worldwide, including the Dyson DC24. We considered that, because Vax had demonstrated that their product weighed less than any other cyclonic, upright vacuum cleaner, they had substantiated the claim "the lightest upright multi cyclonic vacuum cleaner in the world" in ads (a) and (b) and concluded that it was not misleading.
On this point we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition) 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements 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),
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),
3.9
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.
(Qualification) and
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons), and ad (b) under 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
3.38
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
4. Not upheld
We noted the ad showed a woman lifting the product with one hand. We also noted Vax said the product was lifted by an average female model that had not been selected for her physical strength. We noted the videos submitted showed six different women, all of average size, easily lifting the product with either one or two fingers and in the manner shown in the ad. We considered Vax had demonstrated that the image of the women in ad (b) lifting the product with one hand was representative of how the product could be lifted at home and concluded that ad (b) was not misleading.
On this point we investigated ad (b) under 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) but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ad (a) must not appear again in its current form.
