Ad description
A television ad, for the Vax Air Cylinder multicyclonic vacuum, was broadcast on 9 October 2011. The voice-over stated "Just because you're a small one, it doesn't stop you doing what the big ones do. This is the remarkable Vax air cylinder. It's light, compact, with outstanding suction power and 60% more capacity than the average multicyclonic cylinder." On-screen text, which stated "Average across top 10 selling multicyclonic cylinder vacuums April '11. Vax.co.uk for details", was shown whilst the voice-over referenced suction power and capacity. The voice-over continued, "The Vax air range. It just goes to show no matter how small you are, performance is everything."
Issue
Dyson Ltd challenged whether the claim "outstanding suction power" and the accompanying on-screen text were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that the Vax Air Cylinder had the sixth highest suction power out of the top ten selling multicyclonic cylinder vacuums.
Response
Vax said the claim was based on a comparison between the suction power of the Air Cylinder and the average suction power across the top ten selling multicyclonic cylinder vacuum cleaners in April 2011 (the 'top ten'). Vax said the top ten were identified from the GfK Hitlist for April 2011, and explained that GfK was the definitive body monitoring sales volumes for the floor-care industry. The top ten contained one Vax and nine Dyson vacuum cleaners.
Vax said that according to independent tests carried out on three samples of the Air Cylinder, to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 60312, the vacuum had an average suction power of 314 air watts; a copy of those test results was provided. They said they had compared that average with the suction power figures for the top ten, as detailed on the Dyson and Vax websites. They provided a comparison table with that information.
Vax said the comparison showed that the Air Cylinder had the second highest suction power when compared to the top ten. The top ten vacuum cleaners with the highest suction power was the Vax model followed by the nine Dyson models. Vax said the comparison showed that the Air Cylinder's suction power exceeded its nearest Dyson rival by 40 air watts.
They said the only issue was, therefore, whether it was wrong to describe the Air Cylinder as "outstanding" when, amongst the top ten, it had the second highest suction power. They said they did not think it was materially misleading to refer to the second highest performing vacuum as "outstanding". They said that the word "outstanding" did not mean "highest", "best" or "unrivalled"; it meant "very good" or "extremely good". They said consumers would understand the claim to mean that the Air Cylinder had very good suction power when compared to other multicyclonic vacuum cleaners, not that it had the highest suction power.
Vax added that the on-screen text "Average across top 10 selling multicyclonic cylinder vacuums April '11" made clear that the claim "outstanding" was specifically linked to the average suction power across the top ten. They said their comparison table showed the Air Cylinder's suction power was well above that average. They said they could not, therefore, see any basis on which it could be argued that the Air Cylinder was not "outstanding".
Clearcast said they had worked extremely hard with Vax and their agency to ensure that the ad accurately reflected the claims they could support. They added that all the technical data submitted by Vax was checked and approved by their relevant consultant. Clearcast said the word "outstanding" did not constitute a superiority claim, rather, it implied "of the best", which was a claim that was substantiated by the data provided by Vax.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA understood that Dyson had challenged the claim because they considered that consumers would understand the word "outstanding" to mean that the Air Cylinder had the best suction power compared to the top ten, or at least came very near the top of the top ten, whereas their test results showed that the Air Cylinder had the sixth highest suction power compared to the top ten.
We noted Dyson's view, but considered consumers would understand the claim "outstanding suction power", in context with the on-screen text, to mean that the Air Cylinder's suction power was higher than the average suction power of the top ten. We considered that, if the evidence demonstrated that the Air Cylinder's suction power was higher than the average across the top ten, the claim would not be misleading to consumers.
We considered the data provided to us by Vax and by Dyson. We understood both sets of data were the result of tests which were carried out in accordance with the IEC Standard 60312, as required by the CAP Help Note on 'Vacuum Cleaner Marketing'. We noted that, according to Vax's test results for the vacuum cleaners, the average suction power across the top ten was 235 air watts, and the suction power for the Air Cylinder was
3.4
3.4
Standards set to secure the standards objectives [specified in para 3(e) above] shall in particular contain provision designed to secure that religious programmes do not involve:
a) any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of the audience for such a programme; or
b) any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination."
Section
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.
6).
air watts. We noted that, on the basis of Vax's test results, the Air Cylinder's suction power was higher than the average across the top ten. We noted that, according to Dyson's test results for the vacuum cleaners, the average suction power across the top ten was also 235 air watts, but that the suction power for the Air Cylinder was only 251 air watts. However, we noted that result still placed the Air Cylinder's suction power higher than the average across the top ten. We therefore noted that, regardless of which set of figures were used, the Air Cylinder had a higher suction power than the average. We concluded the claim "outstanding suction power" was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
3.5
3.5
Subjective claims must not mislead the audience; advertisements must not imply that expressions of opinion are objective claims.
(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), 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
