ASA Rulings, Summary – Flex Appeal: The Fine Art of Brand Bragging

In this post, we discuss recent ASA rulings focusing on comparative advertising claims, showing how brands have successfully (and unsuccessfully) bragged about their popularity and compared their products to competitors.

 

“Best value” phone rings true

What was complained about? The ASA considered the statement "The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal" used across four advertisements by a telecommunications company including (a) a national press ad, (b) and (c) paid-for Meta ads and (d) a website advertisement. A competitor complained that the ads misled consumers who would interpret the claim to include factors beyond price, such as network coverage, trade-in options, and warranties.

What was the ruling? Not upheld. The ASA concluded that the advertisements placed a strong emphasis on price, with statements on price in large and prominent text, and that consumers would interpret "best value" to mean the lowest price for the particular iPhone deal, which the telecommunications company substantiated with their comparison data.

The ASA concluded that customers would understand the word "unlimited" to relate to unlimited texts and calls and data, which they understood to be the case. The ASA acknowledged that mobile phone providers might offer additional benefits which would vary between providers. However, given that the advertisements did not mention additional benefits and as they placed a strong emphasis placed on price, the ASA concluded that consumers were unlikely to consider those other factors as relevant when considering which phone deal offered the "best value".

What are the ramifications? Whilst depending on surrounding contextual information and claims within an ad, "best value" can be interpreted by consumers as referring solely to price, and need not reflect wider "value for money" type services such as trade-in options or lifetime warranties. Advertisers should keep this in mind when engaging in comparative claims, and ensure that both the claims within, and wider context of, an ad is sufficiently narrow not to inadvertently draw a wider meaning from words such as "value" than is intended.

 

Kibble Cartel: barking up the wrong tree with critical comparison claims

What was complained about? Two posts by Georgia Toffolo, owner of Wild Pack, claimed the UK pet industry was a corrupt "Kibble Cartel". In advert (a), the logos of Wild Pack's competitors appeared on-screen with the statement "The Kibble Cartel” whilst an image of a well-known known drug lord. Advert (b), criticised allegedly misleading labels on competitor products, including various claims about the poor quality of these products. The complainant, a canine nutritionist, challenged whether ads (a) and (b) discredited or denigrated competitors, amongst other complaints.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA placed emphasis on the language used in the adverts, in particular the description competitors as a "thinly veiled cartel" and "the judge, jury and executioner". The ASA noted that repeated reference to the "Kibble Cartel", emphasised through inclusion of images Pablo Escabar suggested that the companies mentioned prioritised corporate profitability over the safety of pets. Per, Rule 3.41, marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product or marketer, whether or not such a claim was true. The ASA stressed that in a comparative advertisement the comparison must not be expressed in terms which were insulting, derogatory or demeaning.

What are the ramifications? Advertisers must take care when mentioning competitors in ads, and ensure that only objective comparisons are made. Rule 3.34 states that comparisons must objectively compare "one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products…". Claims that go further than this may be considered derogatory. It must also be remembered that these rules apply whether or not comparative claims are true or accurate – the tone is key. Ads must not be insulting, derogatory or insulting – clearly here, comparison to an infamous drug lord was a step that the ASA considered too far.

 

No More Mixed Signals: telecoms company's positive messaging misread as competitive claim

What was complained about? A telecommunications company’s use of the phrase “The Nation’s Network” in a TV ad and on its website. The complainant argued that the slogan implied the company was superior to other UK networks without substantiating such a claim.

What was the ruling? Partially upheld. The TV ad was not found to be misleading, as the phrase was found to be clearly tied to the company's 40-year heritage, when considered in context with the full TV ad. However, the website ad was misleading. Without sufficient context, the slogan appeared alongside claims about network reliability and coverage, which could lead consumers to interpret it as an unsubstantiated superiority claim as opposed to the intended tribute to the company's legacy.

What are the ramifications? The ruling highlights that slogans can be considered comparative claims if placed near performance-related messaging. Companies must ensure such claims are clearly contextualised or backed by evidence so as not to give the impression of a comparative claim if this is not the advertiser's intention. For telecoms and similar sectors, it’s a reminder to carefully assess how consumers might interpret branding statements, especially when they imply market leadership. Even when advertisers intend to highlight something positive about their own company, they should consider how the phrasing might be interpreted differently. Providing appropriate visual context can help ensure the message is understood as intended and not mistaken for a comparative claim.