Advertising for Burger King on the Dart referred to the following:
“New Satisfries TM Great Taste. Less Fat.”
[downward arrow] “30% less fat*
*against leading competitor”
[upward arrow] “Great taste”
The Burger King logo featured in the bottom left hand corner with the text “TASTE IS KING” underneath.
The Heinz Tomato Ketchup log featured in the bottom right hand corner of the Dart Card and the very small print in the footnote offered the following information:
“The HEINZ marks are registered trademarks of H.J. Heinz Foods UK Limited and are used with permission. All claims relate to BURGER KING® SATISFRIES™ ™Burger King Corporation. ©2014 Burger King Europe GmbH. All rights reserved.
Compared to market leading fast food brand freshly prepared French Fries (Based on competitor website information and sampling representative of market place medium portion size. SatisfriesTM Fat 9.0g/100g, vs. McDonalds® Fat14g/100g. Satisfries TM Energy 230Kcal /1200kJ per 100g).”
The complainant said that he was unsure if the advertising was truthful as he did not know which competitor Burger King were comparing their fries to.
The Secretariat initially took the complaint up with Burger King’s Head Office in Switzerland and were informed that it was their local franchisee, OKR Group Limited, in Dublin, who were responsible for the marketing campaign in question. The Secretariat then forwarded the complaint to the OKR Group. In response they said that:
1. They had used 9pt type standard in their footnotes which they considered to be comparable with standard newspaper editorial typeface.
2. They also said that unlike other mobile advertising a “Dart Card” was a static format which consumers could stand in front of to read if they wished.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Committee noted the size of the font used by the advertisers, however, while the Code did not specify a minimum font size, it did require that they be of sufficient size and prominence and easily legible. The Committee were of the opinion that even when standing in front of the advertising the footnote proved difficult for the normally sighted reader. In the circumstances the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Section 2.23 of the Code.
The advertisement must not run in its current form again.