Skip to content
PromoVeritas
PromoVeritas
Contact Us
PromoVeritas
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do and Why
  • Our Work
  • News
  • Join the Team
  • Contact

ASA Rulings Recap February 2020

Abi Roman March 5, 2020

This month our Compliance Manager Amy Powell takes a look at Ryanair making unfounded environmental claims, a points-based promotion that didn’t quite work and a shady prize draw promotion. She also looks at another Pretty Little Thing advert that wasn’t all that it cracked up to be.

Ryanair, not so Low!

At the beginning of the month, Ryanair ran an advert in press, on TV and on the radio claiming that they were Europe’s “lowest emission airline”. Now, making bold statements about your environmental impact these days is bound to get you some traction, but for Ryanair, it wasn’t necessarily the kind of attention they were intending. A number of complainants (including a consultant in energy, transport and sustainable development, no less) asked the ASA to investigate whether this claim was entirely accurate, along with a challenge against whether any airline can even have “low CO2 emissions” by their very nature.

Ryanair’s response statement said that the metric they used to measure CO2 emissions was grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometre and that on comparing their brand to four others in the aviation sector, they performed the strongest. The also said that while Ryanair was the top airline of 27 in terms of traffic according to the European aviation organisation Eurocontrol, they scored only 5th for CO2 emissions. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that Ryanair were being misleading as they weren’t comparing themselves with all of their top direct competitors. The ASA also considered:

“While we were satisfied that CO2 per passenger distance was an appropriate method to compare the carbon footprint of passengers on different airlines, we were concerned that the basis of the claims had not been made clear in the ads and that the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that Ryanair was the lowest carbon-emitting airline on the basis of that metric. Consequently, we concluded that the claims “Europe’s…Lowest Emissions Airline” and “low CO2 emissions” were misleading”.

How this Ruling might have been avoided: Environmental claims by brands need to be backed up with a significant amount of accurate and fair, comparable data. Not comparing your brand with all other competitors in your market that are equally popular with consumers is the same as comparing an iPhone with a plastic cup and a piece of string – any claims about comparative effectiveness are bound to be misleading. Likewise brands must be ultra-clear about all considerations they factor in when making comparisons – quantifying how they came to this conclusion is key to provide the consumer with all information and avoid misleading them.

Candy Coat’s Sticky Gumball Promotion

Way back in January 2019, nail polish company Candy Coat’s website claimed “1 Gumball for every £1 spent”. A complainant who had an account with Candy Coat challenged whether the promotion had been administered fairly because they received fewer Gumball points than the amount they’d spent on purchases on six separate occasions.

Beautiful young woman with colorful manicure on white background, closeup

So apparently for Candy Coat, points don’t always necessarily mean prizes. They said that one Gumball was awarded to customers for every £1 they spent (minus shipping and tax) and for actions completed on social media – and that this was made clear in their FAQs. Candy Coat claimed that the complainant had been unable to redeem Gumball points because they had duplicated actions on social media to gain points, which was against the rules.

Ultimately, however, Candy Coat attempted to lay the blame elsewhere, stating that their Gumball rewards programme was run by third-party company and that they should not be held responsible.  Naturally, the ASA wasn’t satisfied with this response:

“We considered that promoters should avoid disqualifying entrants for their promotion on the basis of broad terms if they did not hold clear evidence of abuse…although they used a third-party app to run their Gumball rewards programme, Candy Coat was responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions. In the absence of sufficient explanation about the complainant’s circumstances and evidence to show how the complainant had duplicated actions on social media, we considered that Candy Coat had not conducted their Gumball rewards programme fairly and honourably.”

How this Ruling might have been avoided: The devil is in the detail with points-based promotions like this – what is included and excluded from the promotion in particular. In addition to this, brands must take ultimate responsibility for the running of their promotions, passing the blame on to another just won’t stick with the ASA.

Inside Lifestyle’s Shady Holiday Prize Draw

The bespoke travel experience company partnered with reality TV personality, Jack Fincham, to give away a £15,000 holiday to Dubai. However, the posts on both the brand and Fincham’s Instagram pages were devoid of a closing date and no T&Cs were available. A complainant spotted this blatant breach of the CAP Code and challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly. On investigation, the ASA found that a winner had been selected but the closing date was actually changed three times – Inside Lifestyle said that the competition had been extended due to the large number of applications they had received…great! But that’s never a legitimate reason to extend a promotion.

Although the ASA accepted a winner had been chosen, in their consideration they quoted the CAP Code which states that a closing date must not be extended “unless unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the promoter made it necessary, and either: not to change the date would be unfair to those who sought to participate within the original terms; or those who sought to participate within the original terms would not be disadvantaged by the change”.

Unsurprisingly, they didn’t consider a participation rate to be an unavoidable circumstance and the brand should have foreseen the high level of interest. “We also considered that the extension of the closing date meant that consumers who had entered by the original date would have reduced chances of winning because of the new entries that were received…and therefore the change disadvantaged those who sought to participate within the original terms of the competition.”

How this Ruling might have been avoided: When running any form of prize promotion, it’s imperative that all material information – including closing dates and a link to the full T&Cs – are made available in every communication, regardless of the medium or channel. In addition to that, we always strongly advise to never change a closing date unless completely unavoidable (i.e. due to technical issues), as it’s highly unlikely the ASA will ever deem that as compliant.

Pretty Little Thing on the ASA Hitlist again!

The ASA have made another ruling against the retailer clothing brand, this time for an overly sexualised advert seen on a pre-roll Youtube ad. Now, no-one is going to judge if you love the idea of a “black vinyl, high waisted chaps-style knickers and a cut-out orange bra” ensemble plus other risqué outfit choices…as the kids are (apparently) saying these days, you do you.

However, I would strongly advise against any brand advertising an outfit that would be deemed by many to objectify women, particularly when they have so many other clothes to advertise. Besides, do you want to be THAT brand that is seen to be overly sexualising and objectifying women in order to sell clothes?

The brand’s response stated that “the ad highlighted how they supported and promoted diversity through bold and distinctive fashion of all shapes and sizes which focused on different trends,” and they had not intended to create an ad which was deemed offensive and irresponsible. The ASA didn’t think much of the advert either, “We considered that the cumulative effect of the scenes meant that overall, the products had been presented in an overly-sexualised way that invited viewers to view the women as sexual objects. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious offence and was irresponsible.”

How this Ruling might have been avoided: Whilst diversity is to be absolutely celebrated and lauded, brands need to consider the wider, overall impact of an advert on those being exposed to it (in this case, quite literally!). In an era where equality is as important as diversity, brands need to use their creativity and rely on one of the many other ways to sell their clothes, without (even unintentionally) being seen to portray women as objects in order to sell their products.

Avoid risking an ASA Ruling when it comes to your next campaign and contact PromoVeritas for help and support with all aspects of marketing compliance.

« Go ‘Back to School’ at our Free Kids Marketing Breakfast PromoVeritas joins thenetworkone »

Call us on 0203 325 6000 to find out how we can help your promotion

+44 (0)203 325 6000
info@promoveritas.com
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do and Why
  • Our Work
  • News
  • Join the Team
  • Contact
Proud members of ISO-27001 Accredited Proud members of
Run it Right.
© 2023 PromoVeritas
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Website Terms & Conditions Cookies Policy
We use cookies on our website. All the cookies we use can be viewed using the Cookie Settings button. By clicking “ACCEPT” you consent to the use of all cookies. You cannot disable our essential cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Read More
ACCEPTCookie settings
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Essential
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

CookieTypeDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary011 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-non-necessary011 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Non Necessary".
viewed_cookie_policy011 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Non Essential

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

CookieTypeDurationDescription
_ga01 yearThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, camapign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assigns a randoly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-15728851-301 minuteThis is a pattern type cookie set by Google Analytics, where the pattern element on the name contains the unique identity number of the account or website it relates to. It appears to be a variation of the _gat cookie which is used to limit the amount of data recorded by Google on high traffic volume websites.
_gid01 dayThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
bcookie01 yearThis cookie is set by linkedIn. The purpose of the cookie is to enable LinkedIn functionalities on the page.
bscookie11 year
csrftoken011 monthsThis cookie is associated with Django web development platform for python. Used to help protect the website against Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks
GPS030 minutesThis cookie is set by Youtube and registers a unique ID for tracking users based on their geographical location
IDE11 yearUsed by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
ig_did11 year
ig_nrcb01 year
lang0This cookie is used to store the language preferences of a user to serve up content in that stored language the next time user visit the website.
li_sugr02 months
lidc01 dayThis cookie is set by LinkedIn and used for routing.
lissc01 year
mid01 yearThe cookie is set by Instagram. The cookie is used to distinguish users and to show relevant content, for better user experience and security.
test_cookie011 months
u02 months
UserMatchHistory01 month
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE15 monthsThis cookie is set by Youtube. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website.
YSC1This cookies is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos.
Save & Accept