Ad description

a. A national press ad for Wickes, seen on 21 March 2011, stated "SMART VALUE - 8 OUT OF 10 PROFESSIONALS PREFER WICKES PAINT*". The asterisk was linked to small print at the bottom of the page which stated "*150 painters and decorators surveyed using Wickes Brilliant White Emulsion and tested against the leading Brilliant White Vinyl Matt Emulsion Brand. For survey details go to [website address]".

b. An ad on Wickes's website, visited in March 2011, stated "8 OUT OF 10 Professionals Prefer Wickes Paint *". The asterisk was linked to small print beneath the picture which stated "*Survey of 150 professional painters and decorators using Wickes Brilliant White Vinyl Matt Emulsion. Colour shown is Wickes Vinyl Emulsion Fondant, available in a Matt and Silk finish. When compared to the brand leader, 8 out of 10 professionals prefer the superior coverage and finish of Wickes paint. Try it for yourself and you'll understand why. Read on for the full details of our survey, from how we chose the professionals to the final research results".

c. A TV ad, seen in March 2011, stated "When a job's got your name on it Wickes understand you need a paint that does the job as well as you do. When Wickes White Vinyl Matt emulsion was tested against the brand leader, 8 out of 10 professionals preferred its coverage and finish. Try it yourself and you'll understand why. It's got our name on it. Wickes. And to see the latest additions to our colour paint range pick up our new colour card in store today." Boxed text on screen text stated "Preferred by 8/10 professionals". White text below the box stated "150 painters and decorators surveyed. Tested against the leading White Vinyl Matt Emulsion brand" and "For survey details, go to [website address]". For most of the time this text appeared against a white background.

Issue

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, who believed that the ads would be seen as referring to Dulux, challenged whether:

1. ads (a) and (b) were misleading because the claim that eight out of 10 professionals preferred Wickes paint suggested that the preference applied to the whole Wickes paint range when it applied to brilliant white vinyl matt emulsion only;

2. the claim "SMART VALUE" in ad (a) suggested Wickes's paint was better value than Dulux;

3. the on-screen text in ad (c) was legible because the text was white and, for much of the ad, was set against a white background; and

4. ad (c) was misleading because, by referring to Wickes's colour paint range immediately after the claim that referred to Wickes's white vinyl matt emulsion, it suggested that the claim referred to Wickes's colour paint range also.

Response

1. Wickes said the claim was based on the results of independently conducted research that had compared Wickes Vinyl Matt Brilliant White Emulsion with Dulux Trade Vinyl Matt Brilliant White Emulsion, which they said was the Dulux emulsion most commonly used by professional decorators. Wickes said ads (a) and (b) both depicted a pot of brilliant white vinyl matt emulsion paint and contained statements of reasonable prominence that the survey related to white paint. They said the ads contained no direct references, and they believed the ads made no indirect references, to any other kind of Wickes paint. Because of that, they believed the ads were likely to be seen as referring to white paint.

2. Wickes said they did not believe the phrase "Smart value" would be understood as a price comparison claim against competitor products, but rather as a claim that the brand was value for money. They said "Smart value" appeared on a lot of their materials and was explained in their stores. They supplied examples of two press ads which had used it in the context of other products and explanatory information which had been printed in their catalogue.

3. Wickes said the text was on screen for about eight seconds and appeared against both dark and light backgrounds. They said that when it was set against a light background they had inserted a drop shadow behind the white text to ensure it was legible.

Clearcast said that if the text had not been legible their text counter would not have been able to detect it to measure it and it would have been rejected.

4. Wickes said they considered there was adequately clear separation between the two sections of the ad. They said they had inserted the Wickes end line between the two sections, which they believed would ensure viewers would understand the reference to the colour paint range to be a separate message.

Clearcast believed the claim was clearly referring to Wickes's white vinyl emulsion. They said there was no reference to colour or testing Wickes's range of paints. Clearcast said Wickes separately drew attention to their range of colours, which Clearcast believed they were entitled to do.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that footnote text in ad (a), linked to the main claim by an asterisk, and body copy and qualifying text linked to the main claim by an asterisk in ad (b), stated that the claim was based on a survey of 150 painters and decorators who had tested Wickes Brilliant White Emulsion against the leading brilliant white vinyl matt emulsion brand. We noted that ad (a) used a white background and that the pot of paint shown in the ad was labelled "Brilliant white". We considered, however, that, because it was general in nature, the overall impression of the main claim "8 OUT OF 10 Professionals Prefer Wickes Paint" was that the claim applied across Wickes's range of paint; that the qualifications contradicted, rather than qualified, the main claim and were insufficient to counteract the impression it created. In ad (b), we noted that the pot showed white paint inside. We also noted, however, that there was additional qualifying text which stated "Colour shown is Wickes Vinyl Emulsion Fondant in a Matt and Silk finish". We considered that, because it was general in nature, the overall impression of the main claim "8 OUT OF 10 Professionals Prefer Wickes Paint" was that the claim applied across Wickes' range of paint. We considered that the appearance of white paint in the pot was insufficient to counteract the impression the main claim created and that the explanatory information and qualifying text contradicted, rather than qualified, the main claim and were insufficient to counteract the impression it created. Because we considered ads (a) and (b) suggested that eight out of ten professionals had a preference across the range of Wickes' paint over other brands, but that the survey had compared brilliant white vinyl emulsion only, we concluded that the claims in ads (a) and (b) were misleading.

On this point ads (a) and (b) 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.  and  3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification),  3.11 3.11 Qualifications must be presented clearly.
BCAP has published Guidance on Superimposed Text to help television broadcasters ensure compliance with rule  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  . The guidance is available at:
http://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/CAP/Help%20notes%20new/BCAP_Advertising_Guidance_Notes_1.ashx
 (Exaggeration),  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.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) 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).

2. Not upheld

We noted that Wickes believed the claim suggested that their brand was value for money but not that it amounted to a price comparison claim. In the context in which it appeared, we considered that the claim came across as a slogan or statement of the advertiser's opinion rather than an objective claim that readers would expect to be supported by substantiation. Because of that, we concluded that the claim was unlikely to influence readers in their decision regarding whether to purchase the paint and 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),  3.33 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.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) 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 it in breach.

3. Upheld

We noted that the BCAP Code required qualifying text to be presented clearly and that the complainant had challenged whether the use of white text against, for much of the time on screen, a white background made it unclear. We noted that BCAP published specific guidance, in addition to the Code, on the criteria on-screen text should meet to comply with the requirements of the BCAP Code. We considered that the text was of a sufficient line height to be legible and noted that the typeface was not ornate, serifed or italicised. With regard to size and font, we did not consider it to be unclear. We noted, however, that to comply with the BCAP Code the guidance advised that text should appear against an opaque, block background but that, for much of the time for which it was shown, the text was white against a white background, making it blurred and unclear. We concluded that the on-screen text had not been presented clearly and that, because of that, the ad was in breach of the BCAP Code.

On this point ad (c) breached BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  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.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  and  3.11 3.11 Qualifications must be presented clearly.
BCAP has published Guidance on Superimposed Text to help television broadcasters ensure compliance with rule  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  . The guidance is available at:
http://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/CAP/Help%20notes%20new/BCAP_Advertising_Guidance_Notes_1.ashx
 (Qualification).

4. Not upheld

We noted that ad (c) showed a room being painted with white paint; that the voice-over stated, "When Wickes White Vinyl Matt emulsion was tested ..."; and that the on-screen text was designed to state that testing had been conducted against the leading white vinyl matt emulsion brand. We considered that the ad appeared to reach a conclusion at that point and that there was sufficient separation before it then moved on to refer to Wickes' colour paint range, where the voice-over referred to the latest additions to the range rather than a preference for it. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (c) under BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  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.
 (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),  3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  and  3.11 3.11 Qualifications must be presented clearly.
BCAP has published Guidance on Superimposed Text to help television broadcasters ensure compliance with rule  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  . The guidance is available at:
http://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/CAP/Help%20notes%20new/BCAP_Advertising_Guidance_Notes_1.ashx
 (Qualification),  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.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) 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 it in breach.

Action

Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in their current form. We told Wickes to ensure their ads did not suggest that a preference had been expressed for their entire paint range when their evidence related to particular sections of their range only.

Ad (c) must not appear again in its current form.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.10     3.11     3.2     3.33     3.38     3.9    

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.10     3.11     3.11     3.3     3.33     3.38     3.7     3.9    


More on