Ad Complaints Reports – 2014

Ad Complaints Reports - 2014

Overview

The following are case summaries of consumer complaints about advertising that were upheld by Standards Councils for 2014. Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumer complaints under the provisions of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code). The case summaries are divided into two sections.

Identified Cases

This section identifies the involved advertisers and provides details about consumer complaints regarding advertisements that were found by a Council to contravene the Code. In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint. Where provided, an “Advertiser’s Statement” is included in the case summary.

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Advertiser:	Elephas Group
Industry:	Financial services
Region:	Ontario
Media:	Direct Marketing - Post
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The headline of a direct mail advertisement read: “Important information about assisting one of your C.P.P benefits”. In the body copy, it was stated that “the Final Needs Planning Program is here to help supplement C.P.P. final expense
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the advertisement was misleading because it appeared to be a program sponsored by a government agency.
Decision:	When the advertisement was viewed in its entirety, it conveyed to Council the general impression that a new benefit program was available from the government to make up for a shortfall in Canada’s pension plan. The Canadian flag pictured on the outside of the direct mail envelope, and the word “Ontario” found on the back flap, both resembled official communications from government offices. Contributing to this strong impression was the message on the envelope in large type that read: “Canada Pension Shortfall! Important Information Enclosed”. As well, nothing in the advertisement clarified the fact that the program was actually a program to sell insurance coverage. For these reasons, Council found that the advertisement was misleading, omitted relevant information in a manner that was misleading, and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer.
Infraction:	Clauses 1(a), (b), and (c).
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement:	We would like to apologize for any disturbance that our advertisement may have caused. We no longer use the Canadian Flag in our advertising, nor do we plan to do so in the future. It is our understanding that no Canadian Government mail is sent third class like this piece. All Canadian Government mail is directly addressed to the recipient’s name. The inside communication displays our Elephas Group company name and logo, clearly not a Government agency. Further, our use of Ontario on the envelope was reviewed by the Ministry of Government Services (MGS). We use the brown envelope as it is made from recycled materials. The statements contained in the advertisement are correct. We believe it is important for seniors to know that the CPP death benefit may not be adequate to address the current cost of a funeral in Ontario.

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Advertiser:	Lasik MD
Industry:	Health and beauty services
Region:	National
Media:	Digital - Marketer - Owned Websites
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertiser promoted a “20/20 Vision Commitment” on its website advertising as follows: “…we back our results with a simple commitment to help you achieve 20/20 vision or your procedure is free.” A superscript adjacent to the word “free“ directed readers to a small print disclaimer that read “this commitment is not a guarantee of medical or surgical outcome or that laser vision correction will result in 20/20 vision.”
Complaint:	The complainant alleged the 20/20 Vision Commitment was misleading because important conditions applied that were not clearly communicated in the advertisement.
Decision:	The general impression conveyed to Council by the 20/20 Vision Commitment was that patients will achieve 20/20 vision as a result of the surgery, and if not, they will not be charged for the procedure. However this impression was contradicted by the small print disclaimer stating that the commitment was not a guarantee of 20/20 vision. Council, therefore, unanimously concluded that the advertisement contravened the Code.
Infraction:	Clause 1(d).
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement:	”Lasik MD believes that the advertisement is not misleading. The 20/20 Vision Commitment is not presented as a guarantee that the surgery will provide the patients with a visual acuity of 20/20, but rather that it will take the necessary steps to strive towards such an objective. The legal footnotes clearly disclose that “this commitment is not a guarantee of medical or surgical outcomes that laser vision correction will result in 20/20 vision…” There is a fundamental difference between a commitment and a guarantee. By definition, a commitment is “the attitude of someone who works very hard to do or support something”. In that sense, Lasik MD’s commitment is to offer experienced surgeons, the latest proven technology and excellent patient care to try and achieve 20/20 vision for its patients.”

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity, Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques, Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims

Advertiser:	Cherise Jacques, The Birch Tree Family Wellness
Industry:	Health and beauty services
Region:	British Columbia
Media:	Newspapers
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	A number of information features, not identified as advertising, were grouped together and published in a local newspaper. The feature in question was entitled: “Ask The Experts”. In it, a therapist from a wellness centre claimed that “craniosacral therapy has been known to help with various learning and sensory disorders such as ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, dyscalculia, hearing or vision impairment issues involving touch and many others.”
Complaint:	The complainant alleged the claim was misleading and that the segment of the feature in which the claim appeared was “advertising”, not “editorial” content.
Decision:	To substantiate the benefits of craniosacral therapy for the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, the advertiser submitted a brochure distributed by the institute where she had been trained. In Council’s determination, by including these claims in the newspaper and on the advertiser’s own website, the advertiser adopted the claims as her own which, according to the Code, the advertiser must be prepared to substantiate. No scientific evidence was provided that validated any of the advertised claims. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement contained unsubstantiated claims, contrary to Clause 1 (e) and Clause 8. As well, ASC verified that the feature was not editorial content, but paid advertising that was not identified as such. Given that the commercial intent of the advertisement was not clearly disclosed, Council also found that the advertisement contravened Clause 2.
Appeal:	On appeal, the advertiser submitted several references to patients who claimed they believed their conditions had been relieved by the advertiser’s treatments. After careful consideration, the Appeal Panel found they did not adequately substantiate the advertised claims. The Appeal Panel, therefore, confirmed the original Council decision.
Infraction:	Clauses 1(e), (2) and 8.

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity, Clause 4: Bait and Switch

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity, Clause 5: Guarantees

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity, Clause 11: Superstition and Fears

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity, Clause 11: Superstition and Fears, Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

Advertiser:	Guelph & Area Right To Life
Industry:	Non-commercial - Other
Region:	Ontario
Media:	Out-of-Home - Billboard, Poster, Transit
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertiser promoted its help-line in two different advertisements displayed on buses. One of the advertisements depicted an early term foetus together with the words: “This is a Child. Not a Choice. Why abortion when there are alternatives?” The word “Choice” was crossed out by a large “x”. The other advertisement depicted images of six late term foetuses. The words accompanying this second advertisement were “Simply Human. I’m not a potential person. I’m a person with potential”.
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the advertisements contravened Clauses 1, 11 and 14 of the Code.
Decision:	1. “This is a Child. Not a Choice. Why abortion when there are alternatives?” The complainant alleged this statement was misleading. Under the Criminal Code of Canada a foetus is not a child given that human life begins only at live birth. Council agreed with the complainant and found that the statement was misleading under the Code. The complainant also alleged that by crossing out the word “Choice” in the advertisement, the advertiser conveyed the message that abortion is not a valid option for women. Council agreed with this submission by the complainant as well, and found the advertisement also demeaned and denigrated women who, after careful consideration, make the difficult decision and choice to have an abortion. 2. “Simply Human. I’m not a potential person. I’m a person with potential”. Regarding this advertisement, it was the advertiser’s view that a foetus is a ‘person’, notwithstanding that the Criminal Code of Canada, which is the law on this subject in Canada, states that a ‘person’s’ life begins with a live birth. On that basis, Council found that the complained-of statement was inaccurate. In Council’s view, it was misleading to focus in this advertisement on foetuses during the late term, at which time few abortions are actually performed in Canada other than in exceptional circumstances. Council also found that this advertisement played upon women’s fears in order to mislead them about abortion.
Appeal:	On an appeal by the advertiser, the Appeal Panel confirmed the original decision of Council.
Infraction:	Clauses 1, 11, and 14.

Clause 10: Safety

Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

Non-Identified Cases

This section summarizes consumer complaints upheld by Council without identifying the advertiser or the advertisement. In these cases, the advertiser either withdrew, permanently retired, or appropriately amended the advertisement in question after being advised by Advertising Standards Canada that a complaint had been received, but before the matter was adjudicated by Council.

As required by the Code, retail advertisers also ran timely corrective advertisements in consumer-oriented media that reached the same consumers to whom the original advertising was directed.

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques

Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

Identified Cases - January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014

Non-Identified Cases - January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014

Advertiser:	Hudson’s Bay Company
Industry:	Retail (Supermarkets, Dept stores etc.)
Region:	National
Media:	Direct Marketing - eMail, SMS, MMS
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	In an email promoting a flash sale, the advertiser offered: “Save an extra 25% on Women’s Clearance-Priced Fashions.”
Complaint:	The complainant alleged the advertiser would not honour the extra 25% off, as advertised.
Decision:	The advertiser explained that due to a systems error, the additional discount was not applied to the complainant’s online order, as it should have been. Based on the acknowledged facts, Council found that the advertisement was inaccurate
Infraction:	Clause 1(a).

Advertiser:	Canadian Tire Corporation, Ltd.
Industry:	Retail (Supermarkets, Dept stores etc.)
Region:	Manitoba
Media:	Point-of-Sale
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertiser’s Price Match Guarantee was advertised on its website and in-store. It read: “We’ll not only match any competitor’s price, we’ll beat it...on an identical item.”
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that despite providing proof that a local competitor of Canadian Tire in Winnipeg offered an identical brand of baking soda at a lower price, staff at the Canadian Tire store would not honour their Price Match Guarantee.
Decision:	Because the Price Match Guarantee was not honoured, Council found that the advertisement was misleading.
Infraction:	Clauses 1(a) and 5.

Advertiser:	BMW
Industry:	Cars and motorized vehicles – General
Region:	National
Media:	Audio Visual - Traditional televison
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	In a television commercial, a BMW 2 Series vehicle was shown being driven on a two lane highway at what appeared to be and sounded like a high speed. The vehicle approached a red traffic light and without slowing down continued through the light as it turned green.
Complaint:	The complainant alleged the advertisement condoned unsafe driving.
Decision:	In determining whether the commercial contravened Clause 10 (Safety) Council evaluated the commercial according to Interpretation Guideline #4 – Alleged Infractions of Clause 10 or 14: Motor Vehicle Advertising. To Council, the overall impression conveyed by both the audio and visual elements of the commercial was that the advertisement depicted performance, power and acceleration of the advertised vehicle by focusing on high speed and risk taking. The sounds of the engine revving, the fast driving and the fact that the driver did not slow down at all as he approached the red light all contributed to this impression. Council, therefore, concluded that the commercial displayed a disregard for safety, a fact that might reasonably be interpreted as encouraging unsafe or dangerous practices.
Infraction:	Clause 10.

Advertiser:	Moose Knuckles Canada
Industry:	Retail (Supermarkets, Dept stores etc.)
Region:	Quebec
Media:	Digital - Marketer - Owned Websites
Complaint(s):	25
Description:	Images of people appeared in advertising to promote the advertiser’s Fall/Winter line of clothing. These images included: militaristic armed men and women flying the Quebec flag; a topless woman being punched in the breast by a male boxer; an almost nude woman being carried on a man’s back; an apparently naked woman, wearing only a short, open down jacket, and holding a stuffed beaver between her legs to cover her genitals.
Complaint:	The complainants alleged the images on the website demeaned Quebecers and women, and undermined human dignity.
Decision:	Council, expressed disappointment at the advertiser’s failure to respond to ASC on the merits of these complaints and, unanimously concluded that the advertising was discriminatory and degrading to women, undermined human dignity, demeaned Quebecers, and glorified sexual violence against women.
Infraction:	Clauses 14(a), (b), (c), and (d).