Advertising Watchdogs On The Prowl For Corporations Fudging Facts To Earn 'Green' Credentials Or Making Excessive Health Claims -- In The UK American Stalwarts Boeing and Kellogg Have Been Shot Down In Flames

Philip M. Stone - November 29, 2007

Corporations these days are striving to promote their green credentials or health claims but who out there is checking the basis for what they say? In the UK the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is doing just that, and in turning the heat on environmental ads it has just shot down American plane maker Boeing.

Boeing has been promoting in UK newspapers a picture of its proposed 747-8 Intercontinental airliner with the headline "Our commitment to a better future means cleaner, quieter airplanes".  The ad’s copy stated the plane was “designed to be 15% more fuel efficient, using less than 3 liters of fuel per 100 passenger km. As a result it produces less than 75 grams CO2 per passenger km ...”

Now as a reader of that copy, would you have asked yourself the question of how Boeing arrived at that 75 grams number or would you have just plain (sorry about that!) accepted it? Were you aware that the amount of CO2 per passenger actually depends on how many passengers are on the plane?  ASA received one complaint (one is all it takes) questioning the claim and the agency started investigating.

For Boeing to get to that 75 gram figure for the lower CO2 emission it used the assumption that the plane was l00% full (let’s not even get into how much people weigh, nor their luggage etc.)  But ASA discovered that the UK government when figuring out such emissions uses a standard figure of 79.9% capacity.  And with that ASA slapped down Boeing and told it that for future ads using those figures it must plainly state they are true only when the plane is 100% full.

In its defense Boeing made the point that it was the industry advertising standard to base figures upon 100% capacity.  ASA accepted that but made the point those ads are usually in the industry press and not general interest national newspapers. Thus its judgment that “Boeing not repeat the ad in its present form in a media for non-aviation industry members without a suitable qualification to make clear that the CO2 claim was estimated by assuming complete occupancy of the aircraft.”

A small victory, perhaps, but a warning to advertisers in general that their “Green” claims need to stand up to investigation.

So far this year ASA says it has banned 19 advertising campaigns for falsely claiming products were environmentally friendly. It has received through September 449 complaints against 321 ads on environmental grounds.

False health and beauty claims and ad violence also gain particular attention of the watchdog. Last month ASA banned a TV commercial for Kellogg Special K Sustain for falsely claiming it provided extra protein and fiber than the old favorite Special K. In this case it received three complaints. 

Kellogg had claimed that a 40 gram serving of Special K Sustain had more protein than a 30 gram serving of ordinary Special K, but ASA concluded “The extra amount of protein in Special K Sustain could be provided by the larger suggested serving size, rather than the make-up of the product itself.” And what particularly irked ASA was that in its comparisons of “extra protein” Kellogg had used an average of all of its cereals rather than singling out just Special K that consumers might have had expected.

Scathingly, ASA noted that using Kellogg own statistics when comparing the two Special K products alone “that a 30gram serving of Special K original contained 4.5 grams of protein, more than the 4.2 grams of protein  provided by the same serving of Special K Sustain. We also understand that, when standardized to the 40 gram recommended serving size of Special K Sustain, Special K original also contained more protein, providing 6 grams per serving compared to Sustain’s 5.6 grams.”

Therefore, ASA concluded the phrase “contains extra protein and fiber” was misleading and told Kellogg not to show the ad again in that form.

And it’s not just food health claims. Already this year ASA has tripped up beauty suppliers Clarins and L’Oreal. Clarins ran an ad asking, “If electromagnetic waves can penetrate walls, imagine what they can do to your skin?” The message was that its Expertise 3P (Poly Pollution Protection) neutralizes the effect of electromagnetic waves on skin.

But ASA basically said “rubbish” and ruled that Clarins failed to substantiate its claims, they were not truthful, and they were fear-mongering. ASA had run its own tests and told Clarins to stop claiming the waves caused skin damage and to stop claiming the product has any anti-ageing or health claims unless the company could provide supporting evidence.

And it also recently nailed L’Oreal, for a misleading beauty ad featuring Penelope Cruz for L’Oreal Telescopic Mascara. The ad claimed the product could increase eye lash length by up to 60%. Trouble is, L’Oreal added some fake eye lashes to fill gaps between Cruz’ natural eye lashes.

L’Oreal admitted adding the false eyelashes but said it didn’t matter, claiming its product does increase eyelash length. But, again, ASA wasn’t buying into that,  saying “In the absence of a disclaimer stating that Penelope Cruz was wearing some individual false lashes added to her natural lashes, and because the ad did not make clear that the claim referred to an increase in the ‘appearance’ of lash length (rather than actual growth) , the ads could mislead. It ordered future showings to contain the disclaimer that false lashes were being used, and that the 60% claim applied just to ‘appearance’.

It really makes one wonder that if such reputable brands as all of these are caught out then just who can we believe?

Perhaps the biggest complaints ASA gets these days are about violence in ads – print ads featuring guns and knives and the like, let alone such video ads. The complaints became so many that ASA this month held a one-day seminar focusing on violent imagery in advertising. So far this year ASA says it has received 1748 complaints  about  523 ads for displaying violence.

The symposium concentrated on four trouble areas: depicting guns and knives, horror films, video games, and general violence. Discussion centered on  whether advertising violence is ever acceptable and, if so,  should it be allowed to be used in a light-hearted manner?

ASA is particularly concerned with the effects of such advertising on children, and a report is being compiled which it will use in further adjudications.

ftm Follow Up & Comments

Post your comment here