Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, one of which was Not upheld. The other was informally resolved after the advertiser agreed to amend their advertising.
Ad description
A TV ad, a website and two posts on their own Facebook page for Young’s scampi were seen in June 2021.
a. The TV ad showed a woman preparing a dish of Young’s scampi in her kitchen. The voice-over stated, “… it’s no surprise we’re the nation’s favourite.” On-screen text stated, “Verify at youngsseafood.co.uk/scampi”.
b. The website www.youngsseafood.co.uk, showed packs of four varieties of Young’s scampi. Text stated, “We’ve been proudly serving Britain’s Favourite Scampi …”. A graph was headed “Frozen Scampi Brand Share 2011 – 2021”. The line representing the brand share for Young’s was seen to be significantly above the lines for two competitors, one of which was labelled “WHITBY”.
c. The first Facebook post showed a plate of scampi. Text in a prominent round logo stated, “BRITAIN’S FAVOURITE FOR 75 YEARS – EST. 1946”. Other text stated “BRITAIN’S FAVOURITE SCAMPI SINCE 1946”.
d. The second Facebook post contained text which stated, “Having Britain’s favourite Scampi in the freezer is the ultimate ace up your sleeve when it comes to getting the family excited for dinner”. Text in another prominent round logo stated, “BRITAIN’S FAVOURITE – 75 YEARS – EST. 1946”. Other text stated, “HERE’S TO THE NATION’S FAVOURITE SCAMPI”.
Issue
Whitby Seafoods Ltd challenged whether the claims “… the nation’s favourite” and ”Britain’s favourite” in all four ads were misleading and could be substantiated.Response
Youngs Seafood Ltd (Youngs) said the claim was supported by third-party market research information from Kantar. It was provided on a verification webpage which stated that the claim was made in relation to frozen branded sales only and was based on branded retail share. They said the claim therefore related to consumers who would cook the product themselves for consumption at home. It did not relate to chilled retail scampi or scampi eaten in pubs, restaurants, fish and chip shops or cafes. They said electronic point of sale data taken direct from retailers showed that during the 52 weeks leading up to 24 January 2021, based on retail sales value, Youngs had a 64.4% share of sales. Data for the 52 weeks leading up to 26 January 2020 showed they had a 68.6% share of sales.
Youngs provided data for sales of frozen scampi for the months January to July 2021 (when they were notified of the ASA investigation) which showed they continued to be placed higher than their competitors in retail sales value. They had also analysed Kantar data back to 1995 which had shown their market share was consistently the highest in the retail, branded market. The marketing team at Youngs carried out its own market research which included monthly brand tracking to assess how Youngs scored against their competitors. In January 2021 regular scampi shoppers were asked a prompted question about their favourite brand of scampi, with the Youngs range accounting for 62.6%.
Even though the claim was intended only to relate to frozen branded sales, for completeness Youngs also supplied comparative data from Kantar for retail sales of chilled scampi between June 2016 and January 2022.
Clearcast said they were content with the substantiation given at the time when they assessed ad (a) at script stage.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered consumers were likely to understand the claims “… the nation’s favourite” and “Britain’s favourite” to mean that, in the context of branded scampi sold to cook at home, Youngs sold more than any other brand. We understood Whitby Seafoods’ view was that the claims should be interpreted as including scampi eaten out of the home, in pubs, restaurants, etc, which they said accounted for 50% of all scampi eaten in the UK, plus supermarkets’ own label scampi. We did not agree. We considered the various pieces of data Youngs had supplied, which included week-by-week comparative sales data for the monetary value of frozen scampi sold to cook at home going back to January 2020 and as far forward to July 2021 (when they were notified of the ASA investigation). Kantar data back to 1995 and Youngs own consumer surveys among regular buyers of scampi, were all consistent in showing that their sales of frozen scampi to cook at home accounted for more than any of their competitors’ frozen scampi to cook at home and/or that Youngs was respondents’ preferred brand of frozen scampi.
We acknowledged that the verification information to which the ads signposted, stated that the comparison related to frozen scampi. We also acknowledged that ads (a) and (c) showed pack shots of the frozen product; that ad (b) showed pack shots of the frozen product and a graph headed “Frozen Scampi Brand Share 2011 – 2021; and that ad (d) referred to “Having Britain’s favourite Scampi in the freezer”. Nevertheless, we considered that, other than ad (b), the ads did not make it explicitly clear that the claim related to sales of frozen scampi only and did not include chilled.
We considered that consumers who were aware of both chilled and frozen scampi to cook at home were likely to expect the comparison to take both into account. We therefore also considered the data Youngs had supplied for chilled, branded scampi sold to cook at home. When the sales data for chilled scampi to cook at home was added to the sales data for frozen scampi, we noted that Youngs still had the largest market share.
Given the comparative figures we had seen for the monetary value of chilled and frozen scampi to cook at home, we considered Youngs had substantiated the claim. We therefore concluded that the ads were not misleading on that point.
We investigated ad (a) 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 3.33 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), but did not find it in breach.
We investigated ads (b), (c) and (d) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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 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), but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
