CAP News

Competitor snaps at ‘largest’ claim

16 March 2007

reptile eye
When the ASA was asked by a reptile stockist to cast an eye over its rival's claims, the ASA found the ad wanting

In late 2006, the ASA ruled that the Norwich Reptile Company had to stop using the claim "Norwich's Leading & Largest Stockist of Reptiles & Exotics”. Although it showed the ASA its business had grown steadily since it opened in 1999, the company did not provide comparative evidence that its turnover and sales exceeded that of its rival, Reptile Crazy. The ASA upheld the complaint and the advertiser had to change its claim.

That is something that the ASA and CAP are all too familiar with: unsubstantiated superlative claims. And, as 2007 stretches before us, we know that many advertisers will still be thinking of creating new advertising campaigns for the year ahead, possibly including claims such as “best”, “largest”, “leading” and “premier”. Those claims are widespread and common but, unfortunately, they can have an air of generality about them that makes them wrongly seem immune from regulation or scrutiny.

But competitors are very quick to challenge a superlative claim and will fight tooth and nail to bring the advertiser’s campaign crashing to a costly halt.

Context is all important, though, and occasionally the ASA will consider the use of “best” to be a matter of the advertiser’s opinion. For example, in 2005, Alphason Designs Ltd’s unqualified claim, “the best keeps getting better”, was judged to be the company’s opinion based on ‘puffery’. If the criterion for “best” becomes specific, the need for substantiation becomes more stringent and exacting.

For example, in 2004, the ASA upheld a complaint against Companion Stairlifts Ltd’s claim that it supplied the best stairlifts, because it offered only one range of new lifts and so the range from which it selected lifts was not comprehensive. Similarly, in 2006, the ASA investigated a “number 1” claim made by Cab Direct. Cab Direct’s ad stated “Britain’s Favourite Hackney Taxi from Britain’s No. 1 Tax Suppler”. A competitor, LTI Vehicles Ltd, which sold taxis through dealers and not directly to the taxi industry, showed that, in 2005, its unit sales of used and new taxis were higher than those of the advertiser. Cab Direct had to remove the superlative claim.

Some superlative claims require a footnote to explain the context, as happened with easyJet in 2005. The airline claimed it was the largest low-cost airline in Europe and, although it had more aeroplanes and staff, Ryanair operated more routes and carried more passengers.

CAP acknowledges business situations and profiles are complex and many comparisons and superlative claims are allowed by the CAP Code. What is allowed depends on context and on how the ASA thinks the consumer will interpret the claim. It’s one thing portraying one’s business in a positive light. It’s quite another being able to substantiate the claims that are made.

If you are at all unsure about how to make a superlative claim or a comparison, search our AdviceOnline database, using “superlative” or “comparison” as a keyword, or phone or e-mail to ask one of our advisers for help.