What lessons can be drawn for future comparative advertisements from Starbucks’ unsuccessful challenge to Costa taste test-based claims? Are comparative advertisements now being given free rein, without the prospect of a successful challenge? Zoe Hare wakes up and tastes the cappuccino.
Topic: Comparative
Who: ASA
When: 16 June 2010
Where: UK
Law stated as at: 5 July 2010
What happened:
On 16 June, the ASA published its adjudication following a challenge by Starbucks in relation to two comparative adverts by Costa.
The adverts contested were:
1. a poster on a telephone box stating "7 out of 10 coffee lovers prefer Costa" (the "Poster"); and
2. a press ad stating "Starbucks drinkers prefer Costa" (the "Press Ad").
For both advertisements, the small print below read "Source… In blind head-to-head taste tests between Costa's cappuccino and a cappuccino from Starbucks or Caffe Nero, 70% of respondents who identified themselves as Coffee Lovers' preferred Costa's cappuccino." The information further specified that the survey was conducted with 174 people and Costa's website address was provided for consumers who sought further details.
Starbucks' challenge
Starbucks challenged Costa's advertisements on five bases:
1. Starbucks alleged that the headline claim "7 out of 10 coffee lovers prefer Costa" in the Poster was misleading since it implied a preference for all Costa products over those of Costa's competitors, when in fact it only referred to cappuccinos.
The challenge was not upheld.
The ASA considered that consumers would infer from the specific reference to coffee and the image of the coffee cup that the headline referred to a preference for Costa's coffee products, rather than all of their products.
2. The legibility of the small print in the Poster was also challenged.
This challenge was not upheld.
The small print was clear and of a suitable size for a normal sighted person to read from a reasonable distance.
3. Starbucks contested that the headline "Starbucks drinkers prefer Costa" in the Press Ad was misleading on the same grounds as the Poster: namely, it suggested a preference for all Costa products as opposed to only cappuccinos.
The challenge was not upheld on the same grounds as the first challenge. The ASA concluded that the qualifying text was sufficiently prominent.
4. It was contended that the Press Ad was misleading and could be substantiated. Starbucks argued that the survey results did not support the headline claim. They noted that the headline claim and qualifying claim were based on two different sets of results from the survey: (i) those relating to participants who had identified themselves as Starbucks drinkers; and (ii) those who had identified themselves as coffee lovers.
This challenge was not upheld.
The ASA took expert advice and concluded that the results of the survey were significant and the sample size was adequate. However, as a small victory for Starbucks, the ASA did agree that the small print referred to combined sample size and results from Costa-Starbucks and Costa-Caffe Nero, rather than only Costa-Starbucks. This could give a misleading impression about the strength of the results. Therefore the individual sample sizes should have been stated. However, the results as a whole did support the claim and, thus, overall the headline claim was not misleading.
5. Starbucks' last challenge was that the headline claims in both the Poster and the Press Ad were misleading as the survey methodology, on which they were based, was flawed.
This challenge was not upheld.
Although the ASA did find weaknesses in the amount of reported detail on the methods used, in general, the survey was not flawed simply because it used only one product for comparison. Single blind tests were acceptable because the participants had to complete a written survey which would eliminate the influence of the testers. However, in other instances double blinding tests would be needed to eliminate bias.
Why this matters:
This adjudication demonstrates how comparative advertising can be acceptable, provided you clearly explain and evidence your comparisons. In particular, Costa's advertising shows that the following must be considered:
(a) Is it clear from the advert which specific product(s) you are referring to?
(b) Is the small print clear and suitable enough to be read by a normal sighted person from a reasonable distance? In this case, Costa claimed it could be read from 4-5 metres.
(c) Does the small print specify the exact sample sizes used to support the headline claim?
(d) Have you reported the methodology used for your results in enough detail for consumers to access?
(e) Does your methodology eliminate potential bias/influence on participants from the testers? Single blind tests are adequate when used in conjunction with another objective method of collecting the participants' views.
Zoë Hare
Trainee Solicitor
Osborne Clarke, London
zoe.hare@osborneclarke.com
