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 Advertising Standards Authority.
The ASA has investigated complaints that companies are “independent” or “impartial”. On the whole, it has taken a strict line on those types of claims because they are likely to be understood as asserting full financial independence. In some circumstances, commercial considerations can preclude genuine impartiality.
Most commonly, claims of independence or impartiality are made for advisory and price comparison services. Advertisers claim to advise customers on the best (usually, but not always, cheapest) products or services for their needs.
Sometimes, the ASA has drawn a distinction between impartiality and independence, seeing impartiality as one, but not the only, fundamental prerequisite of independence. In an adjudication against The Marble Services Network (The Marble Services Network, 10 May 2000), the ASA concluded that an advertiser’s claim to offer “independent advice” on “the most appropriate marble company for your needs” was misleading. The advertiser argued that, because he was no longer working in the marble industry, his recommendations were genuinely independent. The ASA noted he recommended friends and relatives and did not have “60 companies registered” with his network as claimed. Even if they have no direct commercial interest in their recommendations, marketers should not claim to be independent if they are not also impartial.
Independence can be judged according to commercial interest. The ASA upheld a complaint against an ad for an advisory service for home improvements that claimed “free advice … the best impartial advice”. The complainant submitted evidence that the advertiser did not offer impartial or independent advice because it recommended companies owned by its employees (Advisory Services Ltd, 1 February 2006).
Conversely, the ASA judged that Simply Switch’s utilities comparison service was independent despite the fact that some of the suppliers paid Simply Switch a commission when customers signed up as a result of a Simply Switch recommendation. Simply Switch claimed to be “Independent – not owned by any supplier” and to offer an “impartial switching service”. Indeed, Simply Switch compared the prices of all suppliers, not just those with which it had a commission arrangement, although it could switch customers over only to those suppliers with which it had a relationship. The ASA deemed that Simply Switch could refer to its comparison service (and to its company) not only as impartial but even as independent, provided that Simply Switch made clear that the switching part of the service was limited to those suppliers with which it had a commercial agreement. (Simply Energy t/a Simply Switch, 24 May 2006)
Consequently, the presence of a commercial relationship does not necessarily preclude description of a service as impartial or independent. Complaints that an Auction Advisory service should not claim to be independent on the grounds that the company operated as dealers in auctions were dismissed (Banwell Smedley, 1999). Equally, complaints that a mortgage broker offering independent and no-obligation mortgage advice was advertising in a misleading manner because it represented only the Royal & Sun Alliance Life & Pensions Marketing Group were not upheld: the ASA noted the advisers had a relationship with R&SA only for life assurance, pensions and unit trust business and were therefore not tied to the group’s mortgage arm (Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance t/a Jones and Chapman, 2000).
Marketers might note the ASA’s position seems to go further than, for example, the Financial Services Authority’s definition of “independent”, which accepts Independent Financial Advisers’ monikers despite the advertisers’ acceptance of commissions from those whose products they recommend.
The Code states that marketing communications should not mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise. Marketers should ensure that the impression created by an ad, and not merely individual claims, complies with the spirit and the letter of the Code. The ASA has upheld complaints against marketers’ ads that have implied independence or impartiality, even when neither those nor similar words appeared in the ads. For example, in 2005, the ASA upheld a complaint against the Anne Marie Women’s Centre (Anne Marie Women’s Centre, 16 Feb 2005) and judged that the pro-life group ad’s claims “Confidential and Friendly information & services related to: Abortion … Emergency Contraception” misleadingly implied that the organisation offered impartial advice, including advice on obtaining an abortion (which, as a pro-life group, it did not). Similarly, in 2000, the ASA judged that the claim “Captain Value Mad searches prices on the web to bring together the best value” on items from CDs to holidays was misleading. That was because the service searched only across sites that had commercial relationships with the advertiser. In short, the ad misled by omission because, without clarification to the contrary, readers were likely to infer that the search engine was impartial or independent (Asda Group t/a Valuemad, 14 June 2000).
Some services, such as funeral directors, seem to believe that a claim to be “independent” is a key selling message. The ASA has investigated several ads about funeral directors that have misleadingly claimed to be “independent” and “family-owned” (for example, The Fairways Partnership Ltd, 23 February 2005, and The Traditional Family Funeral Company Ltd, 23 February 2005). The ASA accepted, however, the former’s claim to be a “family-run” business.
See ‘Funeral Services’ and ‘Company Names’.
Last modified : 29 June 2010