Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Rule 3.1 states that "No marketing communication should mislead by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise".
Marketers should ensure that they hold evidence for all objective claims that are capable of substantiation (Rule 3.7) and should be able to show that their claims are precise and accurate.
Ambiguous claims are those that can be interpreted as having more than one meaning or those whose meaning is not clear. Marketers should generally avoid making ambiguous claims because, although they might be technically correct, they could mislead and confuse consumers. One advertiser got into trouble when it claimed that a product needed water to work when in actual fact it needed ice (ASA decision: GUS Home Shopping, 7 Aug 2002).
Tempting though it may be, marketers should avoid ''over-claim'' and exaggeration by ensuring that the claims they make accurately reflect the substantiation they hold (ASA decision: SmithKline Beecham ''Ribena ToothKind'', 12 July 2000). Earnings claims, for example, should not be exaggerated to make the business opportunity or job appear more attractive (ASA decision: BBL Medical, 5 Feb 2003). Marketers who claim to have ''perfected'' a particular technique, product or service should be able to prove that what they offer is without limitation and can not be improved (ASA decision: Pentoc Ltd t/a Advanced Hair, 16 Jan 2002).
Claims and approaches can mislead by omission and marketers should therefore take care to ensure that their marketing does not leave out important information that consumers might need to reach an informed view about the product or service on offer (ASA decisions: British Telecommunications plc, 23 May 2001; and Celaria Ltd, 18 Dec 2002, where a commercial company gave the misleading impression that they were charity. Had they stated they were a commercial company, the ASA might not have upheld the complaint).
Particular care should be taken with comparative marketing communications that compare the marketers'' and competitors'' products or services. Important features that are essential to allow consumers to effectively compare the relative merits of the featured products or services should not be omitted as this could result in an unfair comparison that gives the marketers an artificial advantage (ASA decision: Land Rover, Aug 1999).
Marketers should remember that, whilst a marketing communication may be acceptable as far as the letter of the Code is concerned, the Code is also applied in the spirit (Rule 1.2) and that when assessing complaints, the ASA will consider the overall impression created. Marketers should therefore check that neither individual claims nor the marketing communication as a whole is likely to mislead consumers.
See also entries on: ''Honesty'', ''Comparisons'', ''Substantiation'', ''Advertisement Feature'', ''Objective & Subjective Claims'' and ''Matters of Opinion''.
Last modified : 27 July 2010