This week the ASA have reminded businesses the rules around: (i) “free” product claims; (ii) disclosing where investors in/directors of companies are promoting their own products; and (iii) alcohol ads appealing to under-18s. 

Remember N.W.A.? You're definitely old says the ASA

What was complained about? An ad for Aston Manor’s Crumpton Oaks Cider (an alcoholic drink) was challenged as appealing to under-18s. The ad featured five animated characters, the main one rapping an adaptation of the song “Straight Outta Compton” and the others dancing. The background of each scene contained images of bright red, pink and green apples and cans of cider.

What was the ruling? Not Upheld. In bad news for anyone already experiencing 'torschlusspanik', the ASA noted that the song used in the ad was released in 1988 and held “nostalgic value for those who grew up during that time and that they would not resonate with younger audiences”. Although there was some association with youth culture through the music and imagery (e.g. of breakdancing and graffiti), the activities and cultural references of the ad were “synonymous” with a specific hip hop era in the 1980s and 1990s. In addition, despite being colourful and surreal, the characters were more reflective of cartoon styles aimed at an adult audience. The ASA made note of the Portman Group advice which said that the characters were “fantastical, some being green for example, and did not have the thick bold lines outlining them which could have appeal to children.” 

What are the ramifications? The ASA's approach in this ruling is consistent with its ruling this year on Lucky Cow Bingo which we have previously summarised. Although in this ruling for Aston Manor there were bright colours and cartoon characters in the ad, these features did not alone make the ad appeal to under-18s because the overall style of the characters was adult focused. Thus, the ASA will look at the overall impression of the ad and the characters used, and will not determine an ad to be of strong appeal to under-18s if only some of the features do. 

Is anything every truly “free”? 

What was complained about? A website for a property management company contained the following claims: 
(i) “SAVE ON AVERAGE 56% ON ENERGY BILLS";
(ii) “FREE SUPERFAST WIFI”; and 
(iii) “FREE WORK FROM HOME AREAS”. 

The complainant challenged whether these three claims were misleading.

What was the ruling? Upheld. Taking each claim in turn: 

(i) There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that consumers could save 56% on average on energy bills, which is how this would be interpreted by consumers;
(ii) Consumers would understand that the WiFi would be genuinely free and not included in any charges. However, contrary to this, the company explained that the WiFi was included in the package price; and
(iii) Similarly, the work from home areas were included in the package cost and therefore would mislead consumers who would interpret the claim as these areas being genuinely free. 

What are the ramifications? It is misleading to describe a benefit as “free” when this forms part of the price for a product or service, unless the benefit has been added at no additional cost. The ASA is consistent with this approach - for example, in 2018, the ASA delivered a ruling to uphold a complaint in regard to an ad for a camera bundle, which was advertised to have a free SD card and case as part of the price - however, this ad was seen to be misleading because there was no evidence of the camera on its own being sold at this price before, and at the time of the ad, the camera on its own was on sale for a lower price. Therefore, the price appeared to be higher because of the inclusion of the “free” items. Businesses should thus be cautious to ensure they have evidence of prices of products and/or services prior to including any benefits at no additional cost, to ensure they can substantiate these as being “free”. 

This dragon's playing with fire - failure to disclose commercial relationships in ads

What was complained about? The ASA's rulings on Huel Ltd and Zoe Ltd related to Facebook ads featuring the products of the above companies. The ads included an endorsement from Dragons' Den star and entrepreneur Steven Bartlett  stating “Ever wondered what Steven Bartlett actually thinks of Huel’s Daily Greens? Well there you have it” and "If you haven’t tried ZOE yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life.” respectively. The complainants, recognising that Mr. Bartlett was an investor in Zoe and a director of Huel challenged whether the omission of his commercial interest in each company from the ad was misleading. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA emphasised that all marketing communications must not mislead consumers by omitting material information, i.e., information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions when purchasing a product. The reputation of Mr. Bartlett as an investor, and his participation in UK show “Dragons' Den”, would not necessarily lead all consumers to be aware of his position as a director of these companies. Instead consumers would consider that the endorsements made were genuine and unbiased testimonials. As such, the commercial relationship between Mr. Bartlett and the companies was material information that was omitted from each ad. 

What are the ramifications? Advertisers must ensure all material information relating to their products is included in their ads. This includes whether any celebrities or notable figures endorsing the product have a commercial interest in the product itself. The line can often be blurred when influencers endorse products online which they invest in, or founded. For another example, see our previous article about “#myownbrand” here. It should be remembered that if any commercial link exists between the individual promoting and the product itself, the ad must make this relationship clear to ensure that the ad is not found to be misleading.