In October we saw the ASA: (i) remind businesses they can't charge consumers for things advertised as free, (ii) highlight the importance of clarifying sponsorship agreement terms and (iii) demonstrate the various restrictions applicable to advertising HFSS products.

Say cheese! The ASA's string-ent approach 

What was complained about? Kerry Foods Ltd's video advertisement for Cheesestrings was challenged on the basis that an advert for HFSS products which is targeted at children cannot include (i) a promotional offer or (ii) a licenced character popular with children. The advert featured life-sized Cheesestrings playing the saxophone and floating children in addition to the cartoon cat, Garfield, promoting a trip to California.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA concluded that, despite Kerry Foods claiming the advert was targeted at parents; overall, the content, imagery and tone of the advert would be more appealing to children under the age of 12. The advert's depiction of a child with the product, the fictional world created, the use "childish-like" voiceovers and the timing of the ad coinciding with the release of a new Garfield animated film meant that Kerry Foods' age disclaimers and reliance on 1970s nostalgia were insufficient to avoid a breach. 

What are the ramifications? As the move towards the more careful monitoring of HFSS products continues through upcoming changes to legislation, this ruling provides an indication of the ASA's approach to such adverts. Where businesses are promoting HFSS products it is important to be aware of the various specific rules included in the CAP Code and follow these carefully. With the increase in regulations on HFSS advertising on the horizon, businesses need to be taking the necessary steps to prepare and potentially adjust their marketing strategies. For further information on HFSS regulatory restrictions, see our previous overview from 2023 here.   

Nothing in this life comes for free, confirms ASA

What was complained about? Mercury Holidays advertised package holidays in November, January and February where the price for the fourth week of the holiday was listed as “FREE”. However, when the complainant attempted to book a four-week holiday, they found they were quoted over £500 more than the advertised price of a three-week stay for the same period. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA considered that consumers would understand the ad to mean, when a three-week holiday was purchased for November, January or February, an additional week would be included for no extra cost. However, due to specific 'early bird' discounts and small print limitations on the three week package, the three week holiday was in fact cheaper than a four week holiday. Therefore, the ad was held to be misleading.

What are the ramifications? Advertisers must be very careful when using the word free, and the CAP Code contains specific rules regarding its use. Here, the ASA maintained it's clear and consistent position, noting that under CAP Code Rule 3.24.2  it is misleading to promote something as free when the price of a product that the consumer must buy to take advantage of the offer (ie. the fourth week) has been increased (or as here when the product not benefit from the same discount as the original product).  We have seen similar decisions regarding the use of “free” in relation to claims for "free" wifi packages and complimentary catering with the ASA finding that customers did receive a free service. This ruling also serves as another reminder to businesses that small print disclaimers are not sufficient to counter an overall impression of an advertisement. 

Unrequited partnerships: it's not me, it's actually you 

What was complained about? A series of Facebook posts shared by the BLAC Awards, an organisation that focuses on celebrating successes in the black community, featured text advertising its "partnership" with a previous sponsor. The posts, which included the organisation's logo, were challenged. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. In the ASA's view, the BLAC Awards' use of the logo, in addition to its public claims of "partnership", suggested (i) that it had an ongoing relationship with the previous sponsor and (ii) that it had authority to use the relevant logo. Although a sponsorship agreement had been signed by the two organisations in 2020, the ASA was not convinced by the BLAC Awards' insistence that the agreement had "no end time". The posts were therefore found to be misleading. 

What are the ramifications? This ruling serves as a useful reminder of the importance of clear drafting in sponsorship agreements. Contracts should include unambiguous termination provisions and be accompanied by a trade mark license agreement, which sets out the extent to which a sponsor's logos can be used. Companies should not presume that such agreements will continue beyond their specified duration - it is therefore advisable to define the scope of the partnership at the outset.