Health & Beauty

The advertisement was a promotional brochure which was also available online.
The brochure featured ‘Back to School’ promotional offers. Under the advertisers’ logo and the main image, a strapline read ‘Is this? IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST’. This slogan was in bold yellow writing on a red background. ‘Is this?’ was italicised, and smaller than ‘IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST’.
The brochure included various products. Most listed products had advertised discounts such as different percentages off the RRP or were advertised as being half price.

Mill Island Pharmacy objected to the advertisement on the following grounds:

Issue 1:

The complainants considered the advertisement had made ‘grand claims without evidence’. They said that the phrase ‘Ireland’s Cheapest Chemist’ was a superlative claim and gave the impression that the advertisers were definitively cheaper than every other chemist in Ireland. They said that this could not be substantiated ‘without data, sources, or a solid method behind it’ and therefore it was misleading.

Issue 2:

The complainants said that the advertising’s bold headline felt like a seal of quality or independent accolade.

The advertisers provided a response to each of the issues raised by the complainant.

Issue 1:

The advertisers rejected that their advertising had made ‘grand claims without evidence’ or that it had made superlative claims. They said that the advertising’s strapline had clearly been posed as a question and their view was that this would be interpreted by the reasonable consumer as an invitation to compare prices with other retailers based on the savings detailed within the advertising. This information they claimed would allow consumers to make informed choices and facilitated vigorous competition between competitors and that these were two aims supported by the ASA Code.

The advertisers said that the advertising had contained detailed price points, savings statements, and range discounts. This, they believed, would have prompted a consumer to compare and evaluate the value offered by them when compared to other retailers. As such, they rejected the complainant’s claim that this invitation contained in the advertising had been ‘without data, sources, or a solid method behind it’. Accordingly, they rejected that they had made superlative or comparative claims or misled consumers.

The advertisers said that they believed the primary basis for the complaint at issue 1 was based on a belief that an implicit comparative claim had been made on the following grounds: –

• The words “is this?” in the strapline of the Advertisement was “italicised and was smaller in size to the blockier and more prominent “Ireland’s Cheapest Chemist””;

• The text “could not have been said to have been constructed like a question and looked to be the answer or a statement in itself”; and

• The average consumer “may not have seen “is this?” due to its size”.

The advertisers said that the use of varying font sizes and styles was very common in advertising as advertisers have to consider the space available to them in the relevant medium to present their products or services as impactfully as possible. In doing so, the advertisers still had to be mindful that the presentation of the advertisement was not misleading to consumers. They believed that their advertisement design was clear and transparent to consumers.

In this regard, they wanted to draw attention to several elements:-

• The phrase “Is this Ireland’s Cheapest Chemist?” (sic) all appeared on the same strapline;
• The text was all in the same font and colour;
• The strapline was near the top of the Advertisement and displayed prominently against a red background.
• The Advertisement appeared on their website so consumers could take their time to review the detail of the Advertisement (in contrast, for example to other advertising media such as TV where the time consumers have to consider advertisements is time limited).
The advertisers referred to a number of published adjudications by the ASA involving legibility and font size and statements of fact. They said that in relation to font size and legibility, involving text size being smaller than a promotional price, the ASA had found that the prominence of the text was sufficiently clear to consumers. The advertisers considered that when viewed as a whole, a reasonable consumer would have viewed the title as an invitation to compare prices rather than having read it as a categorical assertion of price superiority.
They said that the inclusion of a question mark, combined with the detailed comparative price information presented directly beneath it, reinforced that the title was not intended as a misleading claim and should have been read as a question for consideration.
They said that in other cases, statements had been framed as statements of fact which could not subsequently be substantiated whereas comparison, their tagline was framed as a question inviting a consumer to consider the statement and draw their own conclusions.
The advertisers said that their tagline could have been found to have been consistent with Code section 4.31 which recognised the benefits of vigorous competition for consumers.

Issue 2:

The advertisers did not agree that the design of the strapline was designed to look like it was seal of quality or an accolade. They said that since the text was framed as a question and since there was no design element that framed the strapline to look like an award or accolade conferred on them by a third party, it could not have been said to have given that impression. As such, the advertisers rejected that the design was of a type to convey false assurances to a consumer.

Complaint Upheld In Part.

The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.

Issue 1 – Upheld.

The Council considered the phrase ‘Is this? IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST’. They noted that ‘Is this?’ was italicised and was smaller in size to the blockier and more prominent ‘IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST.’

The Council noted the reference to previous adjudications of the Council. They noted that compliance with the Code is assessed in the light of a marketing communication’s probable effect when taken as a whole and in context (S 2.4c).

In this case, the Council considered that there was a visual difference between the font size of the text ‘Is this? ’and the text ‘IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST’, arising from the difference in size but also the difference in style, with one being in italics and the other in block text. They also noted that the complete text represented two phrases with the question mark at the end of the phrase ‘Is this’, rather than one complete phrase finishing with a question mark. The Council considered that given its prominence, consumers could reasonably have focused solely on the text ‘IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST’ and it would therefore have been interpreted as an absolute superlative claim.

The Council also considered that ‘IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST’ was implicitly a comparative claim and that no substantiation for this claim had been submitted.

The Council concluded that the design of the advertising claim was likely to mislead and was therefore breach of Code Sections 4.1;4.4;4.5. Since this claim was implicitly a comparative one for which substantiation had not been submitted, the Council also considered that the advertising was in breach of Code Sections 4.9; 4.10; 4.32; and 4.33.


Issue 2 – Not Upheld.

The Council considered whether the design of the strapline had given an impression of an independently awarded accolade. The Council could not see any design element that gave the impression that the advertising contained anything that looked like a ‘seal of approval’ or an ‘award’ and did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code on the basis suggested by the complaint.

Action Required:

The advertisement claim at Issue 1 must not reappear in its current form.