Advertisment
Advert 1:
A sponsored social media advertisement promoting a collagen face mask included a voiceover by the brand owner “Sarah”. The advertisement ‘s voiceover stated:
“I sat in my car outside [store name] in Blanch yesterday and cried reading your messages, genuinely cried because I never thought that this could actually work.
Hi I’m Sarah, the founder of Aevrae and I need to tell you something. When I first launched our collagen face masks, I thought maybe 50 people would buy it, maybe my Mam and her friends from Sandymount, maybe a few people who felt sorry for a small Irish brand trying to compete with the big names. But then the messages started coming in, women from Galway, Cork, Limerick, all over Dublin saying this is the first thing that actually worked, and I realised that it wasn’t sympathy purchases, you were genuinely seeing results, because I built this for the exact problem I had, waking up puffy, grey, exhausted looking no matter how much I slept, spending hundreds on products that evaporated in Irish weather before they could do anything. I needed something that would seal to my face overnight and actually stay there for 8 hours, lock everything in so nothing escapes, and it worked, not just for me, but for all of you. The support from Irish women has been unreal, you’ve backed us over massive international brands and I’m never going to forget that. Right now we’re doing buy 2 get one free, plus a free collagen brush and skincare e-book. But stock is genuinely running low and I’m terrified that we’re going to sell out before everyone who wants it can get it. Thank you for every order, every message. Every time you chose us, it means the world to me.”
Advert 2:
The advertisers’ social media profile page stated:
“Irish-run”.
Complaint
The complainant considered that the advertisements were misleading claiming to be an Irish brand. They said that they had been led to believe that they were supporting an Irish brand when placing an order, only to ascertain that the product was being shipped from China.
Response
The advertiser did not respond to the complaint.
Conclusion
Conclusion:
Complaint Upheld
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
The Council noted that the claim made in Advert 1 was that they were a ‘small Irish brand’ who hoped when starting their business that they would receive 50 orders and that the advert had made reference to potential orders from friends of family in a locality in Dublin and that the claim in Advert 2 was that the brand was ‘Irish run’. They also noted that the complainant had objected on the grounds that their order was being shipped from China, and therefore, they considered that the advertiser was not an Irish brand.
The Council considered the Code requirements that advertising should not mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise (S. 4.1); should not exploit the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of consumers (S. 4.4) and that claims made in a marketing communication should be capable of substantiation and such substantiation be provided to the ASA (S. 4.9 and 4.10).
The Council considered that the reasonable impression created in the advertisements was that the product was produced locally and in the absence of a clear statement that the product was produced or sourced internationally, it was likely to mislead consumers. In the circumstances and in the absence of a response from the advertiser, they considered the advertising was misleading and was therefore in breach of Sections 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 of the Code.
Action Required:
The advertising must not reappear in its current form.
