Advertisment
The advertising was seen in two digital brochures hosted on the advertisers’ own website. The first brochure specifically promoted window and door fittings and stated in relation to the ironmongery offered within the uPVC Range:
“Design and accessorise your windows and doors with a wide range of handle & letter box choices.
• Chrome
• Brass
• Black
• White”
The second brochure was the signature brochure and featured an image of a door knocker and a door handle. It stated in relation to the ironmongery offered for door finishes:
“Polished chrome or brass finishes in the co-ordinating door knob and knocker.”
Complaint
The complainant considered the advertising to be misleading as they said that although the fittings were advertised as being “brass” or “polished brass”, in actual fact it was simply a brass overspray on an unknown metal.
The complainant said that their parents had purchased the brass fittings for both their windows and doors as they were under the impression that the metal itself was brass. However, after a few years, the brass had worn away significantly and the complainant was informed via a painter that the metal used in the fittings was not brass. The complainant contacted the advertisers about this and was informed that the fittings were not brass but featured a brass overspray.
The complainant said that brass was a metal and that when searching the words ‘brass’ or ‘polished brass’ online, all of the results pointed to the metal and not to an overspray. They considered it misleading to list the fittings as “brass” without any qualifiers.
Response
The advertisers confirmed that they advertised their handle and letterbox colour range as brass, chrome, black, or white. They said that the description of the handle colour as brass was not of course intended to describe the material from which the handle was made. The advertisers said that they would’ve thought this was reasonably clear given that the black and white options could scarcely be interpreted as a material description.
The advertisers said that the description of the colour of a handle with a PDV gold finish was fairly general throughout the industry. They said that as they were not aware of which product specifically the complainant was referring to, they could not say what the base material was. However, they said that this could be stainless steel, aluminium or zinc and that the letterbox was made of aluminium.
The advertisers said that they serviced their products over their lifetime and for this reason they were very careful to ensure that the hardware used was durable and of premium quality. They said that if the complainant wished to contact them directly, they could organise to replace the fittings at a very competitive rate.
The advertisers explained that they had discussed this matter with their suppliers and that neither of them was aware of a window or door supplier to the construction industry who used actual brass handles or letterboxes. They said that these would be specialist items which might be used in period properties or conservation areas. They believed that the complainant would have struggled to find such items.
The advertisers said that they noticed the complainant’s point that when searching for the word ‘brass fixtures’ online, the results were brass coloured rather than from the metal brass. They said that they noted in many cases that the colour was described as ‘gold’. They said that they did not think that this would have led the complainant to conclude that the handles were made from gold.
The advertisers said that they would take care to stress the word ‘colour’ in ongoing reissues of marketing material.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. They noted the advertisers’ willingness to amend the advertising for future marketing material releases to include the word ‘colour’.
They considered that the omission of the word “colour” within the advertising had the potential to affect a customer’s perception of the material which made up the product. In light of this, the Committee considered that the advertising had the potential to mislead consumers and therefore considered it in breach of the Code at sections 4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10.
Action Required:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.
