| Bulletin | 09/6 |
| Batch No. | 189 |
| Ref | 12193 |
| Product | Household |
| Advertiser | Rockwool |
| Agency | |
| Medium | Radio |
| Complaint Advertisement: Male voice-over: Hey, Great news, we got a grant to help with the cost of insulating our home/house. Female voice-over: Grand, now we can be lovely and warm and cut our heating bills. Male voice-over: Now we just have to ask for Rockwool. Female voice-over: Why Rockwool? Male voice-over: Well it’s really good insulation plus we can also enter the competition to win everything the grant doesn’t cover. Voice-over: Just ask for Rockwool. It’s the insulation that keeps your home warm and quiet. It doesn’t burn and helps you do your bit for the planet. Available under the government home energy saving scheme. Terms and conditions apply. For info visit askforrockwool.com. Complaint: Kingspan considered the advertisement misleading on two grounds. 1. They said that the statement that “Rockwool did not burn” was inaccurate and untrue. They claimed that this was unsubstantiated and was potentially misleading. 2. They also objected to the competition element of the advertisement. They said that the advertisement stated “win everything the grant doesn’t cover” was misleading as it suggested that Rockwool would refund all upgrade work. They said that the terms and conditions on Rockwool’s website www.ask4rockwool.com stated that at point 3.3 the value of the prize was capped at €10,000 and that this was regardless of whether the winner had expended a higher amount under the Home Energy Saving(HES) scheme. They considered this limit contradicted the opportunity to “win everything the grant doesn’t cover.” They considered that the €10,000 limit was unlikely to cover the costs of all products and labour required to install the insulation. The Secretariat also, as part of its monitoring function, sought compliance from the advertisers with the existing adjudication by the Complaints Committee on the use of ‘everything’ when restrictions applied. They asked the advertisers to submit substantiation in relation to the claim “win everything the grant doesn’t cover” as it did not appear to take account of the limit of €10,000. |
|
| 2006 Code | |
| 2002 Code |
|
| Response Rockwool and their solicitors Arthur Cox addressed the complaints as follows: 1. They clarified that the advertisement referred specifically to materials made by Rockwool. They said that all Rockwool insulation products, un-faced and factory faced with aluminium foil or glass tissue fleeces were A1 non-combustible. They explained that the A1 non-combustible rating did not include composites such as plasterboard faced products which were untested and would not meet A1 requirements. They said that Euro-Class A1 non-combustible products were described within the relevant test standards EN 13501-1 as products which “will not contribute in any stage of the fire, including the fully developed fire.” Rockwool stated that their insulation will not contribute in any stage of the fire including the fully developed fire and therefore qualify for Euro-Class A1 classification. They said that their campaign was aimed at the average consumer and that it was felt that technical terms were inappropriate for a thirty second advertisement. Therefore they decided upon a more generic but accurate term to describe the non-combustibility of Rockwool insulation. 2. In relation to the description of the prize covering ‘everything the grant doesn’t cover,’ the advertisers provided information that demonstrated that in the vast majority of cases, this would be the case. The information also showed, however, that a particular insulation choice in two different house sizes would exceed the prize and grant combined. |
|
| Conclusion Complaint Upheld In Part The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. 1. The Committee accepted that the advertisement was not misleading in relation to the description ‘does not burn’. Complaint not upheld. 2. The Complaints Committee did not consider it appropriate to use absolute statements such as ‘everything’ in circumstances where this might not be the case. Complaint upheld. Action Required: The advertisement must not air in its current format again. The Committee also cautioned the advertiser in relation to using absolute terms such as ‘everything’ in future advertisements. |
|