Advertisment
A radio advertisement for Phonewatch stated:
“Installing a Phonewatch alarm for only €49 makes your home four times less likely to be burgled.
Wait, really? Phonewatch makes you four times less likely to be burgled?
So you can keep your home more secure.
Four times more secure!
And your loved ones safer
Four times safer!
Because with over 9,000 burglaries in Ireland last year, we could all do with four times more protection.
Gotcha!
So don’t be alarmed, be Phonewatched
Monitoring fees apply. Based on CSO March 2023 data.
Hurry, offer ends soon.”
Complaint
Three complainants objected to the advertisement on the following grounds:
Issue 1:
The complainants considered that the claim “four times safer” was misleading as no information had been provided as to what it was four times safer than. One complainant considered it was incorrect to say that if your risk of being burgled was reduced by four times, then it meant you were four times safer.
Issue 2:
The complainants considered that the reference to an offer ending ‘soon’ was ambiguous as no timeline was given for the offer and could cause a consumer to rush to purchase the alarm.
Issue 3:
One complainant considered that the advertisement was unclear as to what the price of €49 quoted was for.
Response
The advertisers responded to the complaints.
Issue 1:
The advertisers said that the ‘4 times safer’ claim was not a comparison with other companies or their systems, rather it was against homes with no alarms. They said that they arrived at the four times figure by looking at their own alarm rate versus the national burglary numbers as a base.
As evidence for the claim, they provided the following information:
National Homes minus vacant homes from the 2022 Census: 1,957,838
National Break-Ins – CSO recorded: 9,246
Phonewatch Homes: 118,000
Phonewatch Break-Ins alarm receiving centre data: 113
National Rate – CSO: 0.47%
Phonewatch Rate: 0.10%
Phonewatch x safer: 4.93/
4.54 with vacant houses removed.
They said that they divided the number of Phonewatch customers (118,000) by the number of Phonewatch break-ins (113) which gave a figure of 0.95% which they rounded up to .10%. They said that this, compared to the national rate of 0.47%, taken from the Central Statistics Office recorded crime data, gave them the 4.93 rate. They said that if they added in vacant dwellings, it reduced their figure to 4.54 and on foot of this, they decided to use the lower figure of 4 times. They said that the advertisement had included the statement “Based on CSO March 2023 Data”.
They also advised that since receipt of the complaints, they had added in text to their website to explain how they arrived at their four times safer claim, including providing a link to their 2023 Burglary Report and to a blog post on their website.
Issue 2:
The advertisers said that they ran equipment offers all year round and the offer end dates were stated on their website. They also advised that the offer referred to ended a month after the complaints were made.
Issue 3:
The advertisers said that the €49 price quoted in the advertisement applied to the installation of the alarm.
They said that they divided the number of Phonewatch customers (118,000) by the number of Phonewatch break-ins (113) which gave a figure of 0.95% which they rounded up to .10%. They said that this, compared to the national rate of 0.47%, taken from the Central Statistics Office recorded crime data, gave them the 4.93 rate. They said that if they added in vacant dwellings, it reduced their figure to 4.54 and on foot of this, they decided to use the lower figure of 4 times. They said that the advertisement had included the statement “Based on CSO March 2023 Data”.
They also advised that since receipt of the complaints, they had added in text to their website to explain how they arrived at their four times safer claim, including providing a link to their 2023 Burglary Report and to a blog post on their website.
Issue 2:
The advertisers said that they ran equipment offers all year round and the offer end dates were stated on their website. They also advised that the offer referred to ended a month after the complaints were made.
Issue 3:
The advertisers said that the €49 price quoted in the advertisement applied to the installation of the alarm.
Further Information:
The ASAI Executive accessed the CSO Recorded Crime Q1 2023 report (https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rc/recordedcrimeq12023/mainresults/).
They noted that the Annualised total to Q1 2023 for Burglary& Related Offences was 9.,46. They noted that no further breakdown was provided as to whether the premises were alarmed or not.
Conclusion
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaints and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1 – Upheld:
The Committee noted that the claim to be four times safer was based on a comparison of the recorded break-ins of properties with a Phonewatch alarm system versus properties without an alarm, also noting the breakdown of the figures provided as evidence. The Committee noted that the CSO data did not provide a breakdown between premises that were alarmed or not. They considered therefore that the contention that the comparison figure was against only premises that were not alarmed had not been evidenced. They also considered that the advertising implied that use of the product resulted in such homes being four times safer than those without the product. Additionally, they considered that the claim was unqualified, implying that the safety level was the same without any distinction between geographic location, such as city, urban or rural and associated burglary incidence levels and risks.
As they did not consider that the evidence was sufficient, they considered that the advertising was likely to mislead and in breach of Section 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code.
Issue 2 – Not Upheld:
The Committee noted that while the advertisement had stated “Hurry, offer ends soon” without any further details, the offer had completed a month after the complainants heard the advertisement. They also noted that information on the offer was provided on the website. Whilst noting that ‘soon’ was not specified in the radio advertisement, the Committee considered that consumers would understand its meaning and would not be misled. The Committee did not consider that the manner in which it was portrayed in the advertisement was likely to induce consumers to rush to make a purchase they would otherwise not have done. In the circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the omission of an offer end date was in breach of the Code in this case.
Issue 3 – Not Upheld:
The Committee noted that the advertisement had stated “installing a Phonewatch alarm for only €49”, and had stated that ‘monitoring fees apply’, therefore, they considered that it was clear that the price quoted was for the installation of the alarm. In the circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the advertisement was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised at Issue 3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The claim ‘four times safer’ should not be used unless sufficient evidence is provided
