“Leading” claims are likely to be interpreted to mean best-selling, unless the ad makes an alternative meaning clear. These claims are likely to be considered objective comparisons.
The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code requires advertisers to hold documentary evidence to substantiate claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. Additionally, any comparisons with identifiable competitors must be verifiable and comply with other relevant comparisons rules. See also Comparisons: Identifiable competitors, Types of Claims: “Best-selling” and Comparisons: General
The CAP Code requires advertisers to hold documentary evidence to substantiate claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation.
The nature of the evidence required to substantiate “leading” claims will vary depending on the context in which the claim is made and how it is likely to be understood by its audience. However, when making unqualified “leading” claims, it is likely that these will be understood as best-selling claims, and comparative evidence relating to unit-sales, market share, or both, will be required.
When making an absolute “leading” claim, consumers are likely to understand this to be an entire market comparison, and advertisers would therefore need to demonstrate that they are the best-selling across the entire market, taking into account all competitors. In 2018 the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint about the claim “the UK’s leading trade mark advice and registration company” and “The no.1 firm in the UK”, because the data used to calculate the number of trade marks registered by themselves and their competitors did not include many competitors who may have registered a similar number or more (Trade Mark Direct Ltd, 11 April 2018).
Marketers must consider how consumers are likely to interpret any leading claims made, and hold evidence to support that likely interpretation. The ASA considered that, in the absence of any qualification, consumers were likely to understand the claim “THE UK’S LEADING PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION FOR INTERIOR DESIGNERS” to mean that, relative to other organisations in the field of interior design, they had the highest total number of members. The Advertiser had only provided evidence that compared their size with one other organisation, and had excluded other interior design organisations on the basis that they had not listed their members or specified a length of term of directors. Because the ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim to be referring to all organisations for interior design professionals, evidence relating to one competitor only was insufficient to substantiate the claim (British Institute of Interior Design, 18 December 2019).
The ASA ruled against an ad which stated “the leading home show brand in the UK”, because whilst the advertisers had evidence relating to the total number of people involved in the show, including staff and exhibitors, the ASA considered that the claim would be interpreted to mean this show had the highest attendance rate of consumers compared to competing events (Media 10 Ltd, 30 August 2017).
The CAP Code requires that comparisons with identifiable competitor products “must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products”
Marketers do not need to identify explicitly the competitor or product that they are comparing with to be subject to the rules on comparisons with ‘identifiable’ competitors. Whether a competitor or its products are identifiable will obviously depend on the ad, claims, audience, context and nature of the market in which the advertiser operates. “Leading” claims are, by their nature, likely to be seen as a comparison with all competitors. If a market is small, highly specialised or dominated by a few major players, the intended competitor(s) are likely to be very clear despite not being named. This type of comparison is allowed as long as claims are based on objective criteria and are presented in a way that is unlikely to mislead.
The information required to make a claim verifiable will depend entirely on the specific comparison and the evidence used to support it. Generally speaking, marketers should include, or direct consumers to, sufficient objective information and data to ensure that consumers are able to check the claims are accurate for themselves (see Vodafone Ltd, 28 July 2021). If verifying the comparison requires specialist knowledge, consumers should be able to get a knowledgeable and independent person or organisation to verify the comparison for them.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “Industry Leading Performance and Reliability” to mean that the products provided by Trappex had superior performance and were more reliable than comparable products provided by their competitors. They also considered that consumers interested in Trappex’s products would have sufficient knowledge of the market to be able to identify at least one of Trappex’s competitors, and therefore, this was a comparison with identifiable competitors. Because Trappex they did not provide any evidence to substantiate their claims, or include any information, or direct consumers to an alternative source of information, to ensure the details of the comparison could be verified by consumers and competitors, the ad breached the Code. (Trappex Ltd, 18 August 2021).
- Is sales data always required?
Whilst in most cases a “number 1” claim will be a best-selling claim that needs to be supported by sales data, in some circumstances, advertisers may be able to substantiate a “number 1” claim without holding evidence relating to their competitors’ sales.
The ASA accepted data collated by an independent third party over a six-month period which compared an advertiser’s web traffic with that of its competitors. The results showed that the number of unique visitors was more than its four closest competitors combined and more than double the number of total visits than its closest competitor. The ASA considered that, while visitor numbers alone was generally not a guaranteed indication of market share, because the difference in web traffic was so great, in these particular circumstances, it was reasonable to infer that the advertiser was the leading provider and had substantiated the claim (Medichecks.com Ltd, 14 February 2018).
- Alternative meanings
CAP recommends that marketers exercise caution when using “leading” to denote anything other than “best-selling” and ensure that any other intended meaning is both clear and supportable.
If an advertiser intends to use “leading” to mean something other than best-selling, the ad should make this explicitly clear, and the advertiser should have evidence to support that claim. The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “Why AnyJunk? … Industry leading green creds” to be an objective claim that AnyJunk was ranked the highest in terms of being environmentally friendly compared to all other rubbish removal companies, rather than a best-selling claim. Because the advertiser could not provide comparative evidence which demonstrated that they were more environmentally friendly than any other major waste management company, the claim was misleading (Anyjunk Ltd, 30May 2018).
In 2012, the ASA upheld complaints about a claim that a model engineering show was “the leading show of its kind”. Although the advertiser argued that the claim had been based on the number, content and variety of exhibits, the ASA considered that this would be understood to relate to visitor numbers, and the advertiser did not have evidence to substantiate the claim (Meridienne Exhibitions Ltd, January 2012).
Marketers may sometimes intend a “leading” claim to mean “first to the market” or “innovative”. For the ASA to accept that interpretation of the claim, marketers would need to have made it clear that a best-selling statement was not intended. In 2014, the ASA held that, in the absence of a clear indication that the intended comparison was between the technology and degree of innovation involved in the advertiser’s product and those of its competitors’, the claim “the leading manufacturer of downdraught filter bench technology” would be regarded as a claim that the advertiser had the greatest share of the market (Air Cleaning Systems Ltd, February 2014). However, in 2013, the ASA accepted that the claim “world-leading technology”, which appeared alongside the claim “innovative solutions”, was likely to be understood by consumers as referring to the inventive nature of the product, rather than as a comparative claim regarding the advertiser’s market share (Eco Solutions, October 2013).
Whilst there may be situations in which the ASA would interpret a “leading” claim as being the subjective opinion of the advertiser, if the claim is clearly intended to refer to a subjective matter of opinion, in practice such claims will almost always be regarded as objective.
Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the ASA. CAP’s Advice Online entries provide guidance on interpreting the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing.
Our range of innovative solutions can be tailored to suit your unique requirements, no matter whether you’re currently working from home, or are continuing to go into the office. Our services can be deployed individually or combined to form a broader solution to release your energies and focus on your clients.
Why Not Download our FREE Brochures! Click here.
Need A Regulatory Marketing Compliance Consultant? A Bit More About Us
Call Us Today on 020 8087 2377 or send us an email.
You can see our Google reviews here.
We’re looking for guest writers with business know-how and experience to create outstanding articles to feature on our website. Sound like you? Then find out more…