Advertisment
The advertisement was seen on the ‘about us’ page of the advertisers’ website and claimed that they operated “the most modern fleet of Vehicles in Europe
Complaint
The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as they said that the claim used was an unsubstantiated, superlative claim which was in breach of the ASA Code.
Response
The advertisers initially responded to the Executive’s request for comment asking if the 103 vehicle logbooks they had in their possession would be sufficient substantiation to evidence the modernity of the vehicles. They said that they purchased two new vehicles every month whilst continually moving on old vehicles and that they were the only company in Europe who operated this programme.
The Executive pointed to the Code requirements for using both a superlative and comparative claim and asked the advertisers to provide any substantiation they deemed relevant as well as the basis for comparison. The advertisers reverted and stated that they had amended the claim on their website to now state, “we operate one of the most modern fleet of Vehicles in Europe”.
The Executive explained to the advertisers that this new claim was still a comparative claim and would therefore require a high level of substantiation as well as a clear basis of comparison. The advertisers said that their claim to have “one of the most modern fleet of vehicles in Europe” did not mean that they had the most modern fleet of vehicles in Europe. They said, however, that as a driving school who purchased two new vehicles a month, they surely had one of the most modern fleet of vehicles in Europe.
The advertisers explained that their fleet consisted of Ford cars, Mercedes Trucks, Mercedes Coaches, DAF Trucks, Volkswagen Vans, Kawasaki and Suzuki Motorbikes, all of which had won awards for their safety as well as their design and technology. They said that they steadfastly stood by their new claim of having “one of the most modern fleet of Vehicles in Europe”.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
In line with the requirements of the Code, the Committee noted that neither the basis of selection which demonstrated that the elements of comparison were fair had been provided, nor had substantiation such as independent research or market share data which evidenced that the fleet of vehicles was one of the most modern in Europe. As this was a comparative claim, substantiation showing the age of all other fleets of vehicles in Europe, or similar would be required.
In light of this, the Complaints Committee considered that the use of the claim within the advertising had the potential to mislead and that the advertising therefore breached the Code at sections 4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10, 4.32 and 4.33.”
Action Required:
The advertisement should not reappear in its current form unless the basis of comparison and substantiation is provided for the claim used.
