Posted on by

New Decisions: Alcohol Advertising, Warranty Claims and More

Source: Advertising Standards Authority

Headline: New Decisions: Alcohol Advertising, Warranty Claims and More

The following decisions have been published:

Warranty Claims Not Substantiated in Competitor Complaint

The ASA offers a competitor complaints process that gives fast and thorough consideration to competitor complaints for the benefit of consumers and to ensure a level playing field for industry. A competitor complaint from Mitsubishi Motors about two advertisements by Great Lake Motor Distributors Limited was recently considered by a Panel of public and industry Board members.

The television advertisement for the SsangYong G4 Rexton, appeared on the SsangYong Facebook page, the SsangYong website, the RextonG4 website and on mainstream television including SkySport 1. The advertisement included many features relating to the vehicle as well as using a badge which included five stars and said “FIVE YEAR, 150,000 kms FACTORY WARRANTY, PLUS ROADSIDE ASSIST. G4 Rexton. Class leading warranty.” The second advertisement was a post on the SsangYong Facebook page which said, in part: “The G4 Rexton – with a five year/150,000km factory-backed warranty – no other automotive brand in New Zealand offers such a new vehicle pledge…”.

The Complainant said the claims that SsangYong had a “class leading warranty” and “no other automotive brand in New Zealand offers such a new vehicle pledge” were misleading comparative claims and were unable to be substantiated.

The Advertiser said “the Rexton clearly has the class leading warranty as no other manufacturer has a five year / 150,000 fully transferrable factory warranty in this market segment… Our evidence for the class leading warranty is proven by sheer common-sense.” The Advertiser also amended some of its advertisements to reflect the warranty was fully transferrable and removed the Facebook post subject to complaint.

The Panel said the ‘class leading warranty’ claim was misleading as most consumers would interpret it to mean that the G4 Rexton warranty was generally superior overall to all other vehicle warranties in that class. As the Advertiser had not provided adequate substantiation to support this claim, the Panel said it was in breach of the Code of Ethics, and the Code for Comparative Advertising. The Panel ruled this part of the complaint was Upheld.

The Panel noted the Advertiser had removed the Facebook post subject to complaint and, noting the self-regulatory action of the Advertiser, ruled this part of the complaint was Settled.

Therapeutic Claim in Alcohol Advertising Not Saved By Humour

The BeerNZ advertisement appeared in the 2018 Great Kiwi Beer Festival event guide. The advertisement promoted the services of BEERNZ and was headlined “Beer is cheaper than therapy”. It included the BEERNZ logo, with the line “NZ’s Leading Craft Beer Distributor”. The word “Distributor” was crossed out in red and the word “Psychologists” written underneath. The Complainants said it was irresponsible and misleading to refer to beer as a substitute for appropriate psychological counselling and treatment in a guide for an alcohol-related event.

The Advertiser said it did not authorise, pay for or publish the advertisement in the 2018 guide. The advertisement had been published in the 2017 guide and the event organisers confirmed it had placed the advertisement in the 2018 guide without the knowledge of the Advertiser. The Advertiser said the advertisement used obvious hyperbole in a targeted publication to promote its role as a craft beer distributor and was unlikely to offend or mislead the audience.

The Complaints Board agreed the claim in the advertisement did imply a therapeutic benefit. It said that although the intended humour of the advertisement was likely to be obvious to consumers attending the beer festival, the restriction on making therapeutic claims about alcohol in the Code did not allow for the use of humour. The Complaints Board agreed that while matters relating to mental health and addiction were serious, in the context of an event guide for a beer festival, the advertisement did not reach the threshold to cause serious or widespread offence.

Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaints were Upheld, in part.