2015 Ad Complaints Report

7/26/2019 2015 Ad Complaints Report

1/12

Annual Ad Complaints Report

2015 Year in Review

SEND


2/12

I N TRODUCT ION

1Adversing Standards Canada

Annual Ad Complaints Report | 2015 Year in Review

As Saas CaaaFounded in 1957, ASC is the naonal independent adversing

industry self-regulatory body commied to creang and

maintaining public condence in adversing. ASC members

leading adversers, adversing agencies, media organizaons,

and suppliers to the adversing industry are commied

to supporng responsible and eecve adversing

self-regulaon. A not-for-prot organizaon, ASC administers

the Canadian Code of Adversing Standards, the principal

instrument of adversing self-regulaon in Canada, and a

naonal mechanism for accepng and responding to consumerscomplaints about adversing.

Introducon 1

2015 Highlights 3

2015 Year in Review 4

The Consumer Complaint Procedure 10

The Standards Councils 11

To Submit a Consumer Complaint 11


3/12

I N TRODUCT ION



An effeCtive ConSumerreSponSe meChAniSm iS

eSSentiAl to mAintAiningpubliC ConfidenCe inAdvertiSing.

At Adversing Standards Canada (ASC) we recognize that an eecve

consumer response mechanism is essenal to maintaining public

condence in adversing. Through ASCs Consumer Complaint

Procedure, we accept and respond to consumers complaints about

adversing appearing in Canadian media.

Reporng on complaints upheld by ASCs independent Standards

Councils is an important part of the process. The Complaint Case

Summaries provide invaluable learning for both the adversing

industry and the public regarding how Councils interpret and apply

theCanadian Code of Adversing Standards.

This 2015 Ad Complaints Report provides an account of the number

of consumer complaints received and invesgated over the past

year, informaon about the types of complaints upheld, and insights

regarding consumer concerns in 2015.

For more informaon about complaints upheld by Councils from

January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, see the Case Summaries

published on our web site at:

asaas.c/cas2015

A g ASCsrscs o

To learn more about the

Canadian Code of Adversing

Standards, Interpretaon

Guidelines and the Consumer

Complaints Process, visit:

asaas.c

Online resources include:

Canadian Code of

Ads Sadads ia gs

ASC Ass

A Cas r

(including Complaint Case

Sas)

Consumer Complaint

Sss f
http://adstandards.com/en/Standards/adComplaintsReports.aspx?periodyear=2015http://www.adstandards.com/en/http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/theCode.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/theCode.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/interpretingTheCode.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/ASCAdvisories.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/report.asphttp://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/adComplaintsreportscurrent.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/adComplaintsreportscurrent.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/ConsumerComplaints/howToSubmitAComplaint.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/ConsumerComplaints/howToSubmitAComplaint.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/ConsumerComplaints/howToSubmitAComplaint.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/ConsumerComplaints/howToSubmitAComplaint.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/adComplaintsreportscurrent.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/adComplaintsreportscurrent.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/report.asphttp://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/ASCAdvisories.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/interpretingTheCode.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/theCode.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/theCode.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/http://adstandards.com/adcomplaintsreporthttp://adstandards.com/en/Standards/adComplaintsReports.aspx?periodyear=2015


4/12

xx



122 assadministravely resolved

134 cas involving

met the Code accacca

1,268 cas

242 casabout 50 assupheld by Councils

as -ccaazas the highest by category

273cas received about

referred to Councils about

291cas

1,135ass

1,774cas received about

2015 hs

77 ass


5/124Adversing Standards Canada


OverviewIn 2015, consumers submied 1,774 complaints to

ASC. Of these, 1,268 complaints met the criteria for

acceptance under the Canadian Code of Adversing

Standards(Code). The remaining 506 complaints could

not be pursued because they did not fall within the

Codeacceptance criteria. These included: complaints

in which no specic adversement was idened;

complaints about adversements that were no longer

current; complaints about foreign adversing or

polical or elecon adversing; and complaints about

adversements that did not meet theCodedenion

of adversing.

During 2015, the independent Councils adjudicated

291 complaints about 77 adversements. Of these,

242 complaints were upheld about 50 adversements.

Case Summaries of these upheld complaints can be

found at:asaas.c/cas2015

An addional 134 complaints about 122

adversements were Administravely Resolved by

ASC sta.

ComplAintS SummAry 2015 ComplAintS AdS/CASeS

Received by ASC 1,774 1,135

Met Codeacceptance criteria 1,268 776

Administravely resolved by sta 134 122

Raised potenal Codeissues & forwarded to Councils 291 77

Upheld by Councils 242 50

2015 ya i rw
http://adstandards.com/en/Standards/adComplaintsReportsCurrent.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/adComplaintsReports.aspx?periodyear=2015http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/adComplaintsReports.aspx?periodyear=2015http://adstandards.com/en/Standards/adComplaintsReportsCurrent.aspx


6/12

2015 Year in Review



Asa rs Cas

ASC uses a streamlined procedure to handle simple,

non-complicated complaints, such as price errors in

retail advertising. Complaints that raise issues under

Clause 1 (Accuracy and Clarity) and/or Clause 3 (Price

Claims) are Administratively Resolved by ASC staff ifthe advertiser promptly withdraws the advertisement

and takes corrective action after being notified of the

complaint by ASC. Complaints handled in this manner

are not forwarded to Councils for adjudication.

Cas CodeClause

The Codesets the standards for acceptable advertising

and provides the basis for the review and adjudication

of consumer complaints about advertising. Of the

1,268 complaints that met the Codeacceptance

criteria, most involved concerns relating to:

Accuracy and Clarity (Clause 1) and Price

Claims (Clause 3)

Safety (Clause 10)

Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals (Clause 14)

Cas 1 (Accac a Ca) a Cas 3(pc Cas)

In 2015, ASC reviewed 717 complaints (about 552

advertisements) alleging misleading or inaccurate

advertising (Clauses 1 and/or 3). Ultimately, Councils

upheld 167 complaints about 43 advertisements.

These involved advertisements that omitted relevant

information, did not clearly state all pertinent details

of an offer, and contained unsubstantiated claims.

Cas 14 (uacca dcsa paas)

Most complaints evaluated under Clause 14 involve

subjective matters of personal taste or preference and

do not ultimately raise issues under the Code.

453 complaints about 152 advertisements were

reviewed under Clause 14. Of these, Councils

adjudicated and upheld 92 complaints about seven

advertisements. These included advertisements

that Councils found demeaned women, and

advertisements that offended standards of public

decency. The balance did not meet the threshold to

raise issues under this clause.

Cas 10 (Sa)

A total of 23 complaints about 21 advertisements

involved safety concerns, and two were upheld about

two advertisements.

Oh Causs

Cas 2 (dss As tcqs)

In 2015, seven complaints about six advertisements

were pursued under this clause, and two were upheldabout two advertisements.

Cas 4 (ba a Swc)

Eight complaints were reviewed about eight

advertisements, and none were upheld.

Cas 8 (pssa a Scc Cas)

109 complaints were pursued about 11

advertisements, and 102 were upheld about four

advertisements.

Cas 11 (Sss a fas)

In 2015, two complaints were submitted about two

advertisements. Both were upheld by Councils.

2015 Consumer Complaints Case Summaries:

asaas.c/cas2015

complaints reviewed

alleging misleading or

inaccurate adversing

717
http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/adComplaintsReports.aspx?periodyear=2015http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/adComplaintsReports.aspx?periodyear=2015


7/12

2015 Year in Review



Clause 1

Accac a Caand

Clause 3

pc Cas

717

167

Complaintsc

Complaints

a

43ads:

Clause 2

dss Astcqs

7

2

Complaintsc

Complaints

a

2ads:

Clause 4

ba a Swc

8

0

Complaintsc

Complaints

Clause 12

As C

1

0

Complaintsc

Complaints

a

2ads:

Clause 10

Sa

23

2

Complaintsc

Complaints

a

2ads:

Clause 11

Sss a fas

2

2

Complaintsc

Complaints

a

4ads:

Clause 8

pssa aScc Cas

109

102

Complaintsc

Complaints

a

7ads:

Clause 14

uacca dcsa paas

453

92

Complaintsc

Complaints


8/12

2015 Year in Review



Cas Ca As

In 2015, ASC received an unusually high

number of complaints about several

adversements by not-for-prot advocacy

groups that garnered considerablemedia aenon. For the rst me,

more complaints were submied about

adversing by non-commercial organizaons

than any other category (273). This was

followed by complaints about retail

adversing, which aracted 210 complaints.

Third, with 114 complaints, was adversing

for cars, motorized vehicles and automove

products/services.

Cas ma

Adversing on television, with

671 complaints, garnered the highest

number of complaints of any medium.

Digital adversing generated the secondhighest number of complaints (348).

Complaints regarding adversing in this

category primarily related to adversing

on adverser-owned websites. Direct

Markeng followed with 248 complaints.

Cas Ca

Top ten categories

Reta

il

Leisu

rese

rvice

s

Service

s(ot

her)

Ener

gy,w

ater,

uli

es

Trave

lSer

vices

Ente

rtain

men

tSer

vices

Non-

com

mer

cial

Food

Cars

andM

otor

ized

vehic

les

Finan

cialS

ervic

es

273

210

114106 104 103

7761 55 54

94

175 00

98

91

21

2

Complaints received

Complaints upheld

Cas ma t

Top ten media types

Television 671

Out-of-home 221

Point-of-Sale 57

Digital 348

Brochures/Flyers 110

Newspapers 48

Direct Markeng 248

Radio 94

Magazines

Packaging andLabelling

19

9


9/12

2015 Year in Review



Cs Ccs

t g t? p As Cas

Canadians are generally skepcal when it comes

to adversing. This was conrmed in ASCs 2014

Cosu Pspcs o Adsreport,

which revealed that the top concern cited by surveyrespondents who had seen, read or heard an

adversement they considered to be unacceptable

was a misleading or unrealisc representaon of an

adversed product or service.

Complaints about seven dierent adversements were

reviewed in 2015, and found by the Standards Council

to contravene Clauses 1(e) (Accuracy and Clarity) and

Clause 8 (Scienc and Professional Claims).

CodeCas 1() (Accac a Ca)Both in principle and pracce, all adversing

claims and representaons must be supportable.

If the support on which an adversed claim or

representaon depends is test or survey data, such

data must be reasonably competent and reliable,

reecng accepted principles of research design and

execuon that characterize the current state of the

art. At the same me, however, such research should

be economically and technically feasible, with due

recognion of the various costs of doing business.

CodeCas 8 (pssa Scc Cas)

Adversements must not distort the true meaning

of statements made by professionals or scienc

authories. Adversing claims must not imply that

they have a scienc basis that they do not truly

possess. Any scienc, professional or authoritave

claims or statements must be applicable to the

Canadian context, unless otherwise clearly stated.

Whether the adverser is a non-prot advocacyorganizaon or a commercial adverser, the

Coderequires that all adversing claims must be

supportable. This means that the adverser must

demonstrate to the sasfacon of ASC and Councils

that it possesses robust scienc evidence to support

its adversing claims. As well, the evidence must

be relevant to the Canadian context. For example,

in the case of claims relang to health and science,

Council has considered ocial statements by Health

Canada and other Canadian government bodies as

authoritave. On the other hand, newspaper arcles,

favourable tesmonials and opinions provided by

users of a product or service are generally not be

considered sucient to prove such claims.

The following are examples of cases in which the

claims were not adequately substanated as required

under the Code.

Claims ga Wa a Ca Ca

An advocacy organizaon made claims regarding

global warming and climate change in out-of-home

adversements, specically:

that the sun, not human acvity was the main driver

of climate change, and

that global warming stopped naturally 16+ years ago.

A dierent advocacy organizaon claimed in transit

adversements that consumpon of animal products

was the top contributor to climate change.

Aer carefully considering the evidence submied

by the adversers, Council found that the categorical

and unequivocal claims could not be supported bythe preponderance of current evidence, thus the

adversements contravened Clauses 1(e) and 8.

Claims ra Qa mca Wa

In a direct mail adversement, an adverser of water

puricaon systems claimed that there were negave

health eects due to contaminants, such as chlorine,

in a parcular municipalitys water supply. In coming

to its decision, Council considered Health Canadas

Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, which

specically stated that no adverse health eects have

been observed in humans from consuming water with

high chlorine levels over a short period of me to

be authoritave. As a result, Council did not nd the

claim to be supportable under Clauses 1(e) and 8.
http://www.adstandards.com/en/ASCLibrary/2014ASCConsumerResearch.pdfhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/ASCLibrary/2014ASCConsumerResearch.pdfhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/ASCLibrary/2014ASCConsumerResearch.pdfhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/ASCLibrary/2014ASCConsumerResearch.pdf


10/12

2015 Year in Review



is Wa y S Wa y g?

Another hot topic in 2015 was the depicon of

food in commercials for quick service restaurants.

A number of complainants, parcularly from

Quebec, told us that the sandwiches they were

served in some restaurants did not resemble theproducts featured in television commercials.

CodeCas 1(a) (Accac a Ca)

Adversements must not contain inaccurate,

decepve or otherwise misleading claims,

statements, illustraons or representaons,

either direct or implied, with regard to any

idened or idenable product or service.

While most of these complaints did not ulmately

raise issues under this clause, Council upheld

ve complaints about a commercial that the

complainants alleged exaggerated the amount of

lobster in the adversed lobster sandwich.

Of course, quick service restaurants seek to present

their products in the best possible light, and Council

understands that the same me and care cannot

possibly go into making a sandwich at a restaurant

as at a photo shoot. Nonetheless, the adversing

must reasonably resemble what someone can

expect to be served at the restaurant.

US DOllAr PriCing inCAnADiAn ADvertiSementS

Adversers that cater to the Canadian marketmust ensure that if the quoted price is not listed

in Canadian dollars, then that fact must be clearly

indicated to the consumer in the adversement.

Clause 3(c) (Price Claims) of the Codestates

that: Prices quoted in adversements in

Canadian media, other than in Canadian funds,

must be so idened.

With the decline in value of the Canadian dollar

against the US dollar, this issue is of increasing

concern to Canadian consumers. In 2015, ASCreceived a number of complaints regarding

adversements that did not clearly state that the

price of the adversed product/service was in

US dollars.

In one case, a company adversed the prices of

fragrances in Canadian currency on its website.

However, the complaints purchase was actually

charged in US funds. Although the fact that all

charges and refunds are posted in US dollars was

included in the customer service secon of the

adversers website, Council found that this condion

was of such signicance that it should have been

prominently stated on each page of the website.

Because it was not, Council found the adversement

was misleading.

Even when a price is correctly stated as being in

US dollars, some Canadians are irritated. For example,

a French infomercial featured a red maple leaf with

the statement ships to Canada. Some consumers

in Quebec told us that they perceive this to be a

deliberate aempt to confuse viewers, parcularlywhen the commercial was translated into French for

the Quebec market. Consumers asked: Why translate

the commercial, but not convert the currency?

...adss us o

coa accua, dcp

o ohws sad cas,

sas, usaos o

psaos...


11/12

xx



SEND

APPEAL

t Cs Ca pc

Established by the Canadian adversing industry over 50 years ago, the Consumer

Complaint Procedureprovides Canadian consumers with a mechanism to submitwrien complaints about adversing currently running in Canadian media.

Ca rc

Each wrien consumer complaint is reviewed by ASC against

the Canadian Code of Adversing Standards.

1

pa rw

ASC conducts a preliminary evaluaon of the complaint. If thecomplaint does not raise an issue under theCode, ASC sends

a leer of explanaon.

2

hw Cas a ha

If the complaint raises an issue under the Code, the adverser is

requested to provide its comments on the complainants concerns.

If a Codeissue remains, the complaint is forwarded to Council for

adjudicaon.

3

Cc rw a dcs

Complaints forwarded to Council are carefully reviewed under the

Code.If Council determines that the adversement contravenes

one or more clauses of the Code, Council will uphold the complaint.

The adverser is asked to withdraw or amend the adversing.

4

Aa a Cc dcs

If the consumer or adverser disagrees with Councils decision,

the consumer or adverser can request an appeal.

5


12/12

Cac ia

t oc

Adversing Standards Canada

175 Bloor Street East

South Tower, Suite 1801

Toronto, Ontario M4W 3R8

Phone: (416) 961-6311

@asaas.cwww.asaas.c

ma oc

Adversing Standards Canada

2015 Peel Street

Suite 915

Montreal, Quebec H3A 1T8

Phone: (514) 931-8060

2016 Adversing Standards Canada

This report is the property of Adversing

Standards Canada and may not be

reproduced, in whole, or in part, without

prior express wrien consent from

Adversing Standards Canada.

t S a Cs Ca

If you have a concern about an ad you see or

hear currently running in Canadian media, visit

ASCs web site to learn about how to submit

a consumer complaint.

t Saas Ccs

ASCs independent, volunteer Standards Councils

(Councils) play a vital role in ensuring objecve and

fair complaint adjudicaon. While ASC administers

the process by which consumers submit their wrien

complaints about adversements, those complaintsthat raise potenal issues under the Codeare

reviewed and adjudicated by Councils. The Councils

include senior industry and public representaves

from across Canada, who are commied to help

ensure that Canadian adversing is truthful, fair

and accurate.

The complete list of Standards Council representaves

is available.

Complaints can be submied to

ASC using the Online Complaint

Sss f

or

mail your wrien complaint to:

As Saas Caaa

175 Bloor St. EastSouth Tower, Suite 1801

Toronto, ON, M4W 3R8
mailto:info%40adstandards.com?subject=http://www.adstandards.com/en/http://www.adstandards.com/en/ConsumerComplaints/consumerResponseCouncils.aspxhttp://adstandards.com/eComplaints/#enhttp://adstandards.com/eComplaints/#enhttp://adstandards.com/eComplaints/#enhttp://adstandards.com/eComplaints/#enhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/ConsumerComplaints/consumerResponseCouncils.aspxhttp://www.adstandards.com/en/mailto:info%40adstandards.com?subject=

2015 Ad Complaints Report

Documents

Transcript of 2015 Ad Complaints Report