Advertisment
The brochure referred to the following:
“The World’s most intelligent heater. Fully programmable.
The real alternative to storage and panel heaters
Farho – The most efficient electric heater. Save Save Save.
Running costs on similar products can be up to 40% more…”
Under the heading “Electric Heater Comparisons” the advertisers provided three tables for comparative purposes.
FARHO
AREA COVERED PANELS WATT
7.80 sq. m 5 panel 550w
10.94 sq. m 7 panel 770w
14.80 sq. m 9 panel 990w
17.20 sq. m 11 panel 1210w
20.38 sq. m 13 panel 1430w
COMPETITOR A
AREA COVERED PANELS WATT
9.00 sq. m 7 panel 770w
11.00 sq. m 9 panel 990w
14.00 sq. m 11 panel 1210w
16.00 sq. m 13 panel 143w
19.00 sq. m 15 panel 1600w
Running Costs are 20 to 25% Higher
COMPETITOR B
AREA COVERED PANELS WATT
7.50 sq. m 6 panel 750w
10.00 sq. m 8 panel 1000w
15.00 sq. m 11 panel 1500w
18.00 sq. m 13 panel 1800w
Running Costs are 40% Higher
Complaint
The complainants, Dimpco, considered the claims made by the advertisers to be unsubstantiated claims. They queried how the advertisers could draw comparisons against unnamed competitors given that the only recognised standard for making energy consumption comparisons in Ireland was the Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure (DEAP) administered by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI). They also queried the use of the phrase “The world’s most intelligent heater”.
In conclusion the complainants considered the advertising to be misleading, lacking in substantiation and not to be conforming to the principles of fair competition.
Response
The advertisers said that all the information documented in their marketing material was based on information taken from their competitors’ catalogues in relation to oil filled radiators (not storage heaters). This was the basis on which they had claimed that “running costs on similar products can be up to 40% more.” Their comparisons were based on heater wattage and the amount of energy needed to heat a room on a per m2 basis
The Executive pointed out to the advertisers that their brochure had clearly referred to their product being an alternative to storage heaters and therefore the comparisons which they were using may be misleading to consumers. They also queried whether the savings indicated had been supported by an independent source such as the SEAI.
The advertisers said that the main aim of the information contained within in their brochure was to highlight the advantages of the Farho brand in comparison to other oil filled heater manufacturers and to inform the Public that Farho was a genuine alternative to all types of heating from storage heating to oil and gas heating. They said that their brochure had also been designed to give a general guide line on the size and the approximate number of heaters required to heat various room sizes and the advantages of using Farho as an alternative to other brands. They said, however, that the information which they had provided in their brochure had not been verified by an independent source.
The advertisers said that they had described the Farho heater as “the world’s most intelligent heater” because they considered that while some of their competitors had some of the functions available on the Farho heater, they did not have them all. Finally they said that the brochure in question was out of print and they would be happy to liaise with the Authority before printing a new edition.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld
The Complaints Committee considered the details of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. They noted that the information provided in the advertising in relation to the savings consumers could expect to make by using Farho heaters had not been independently verified and the advertisers had been unable to provide substantiation for the claims made. They also noted that the advertisers had been unable to substantiate the claim that Farho was “The world’s most intelligent heater”. The Committee therefore considered the advertising to be in breach of Sections 2.9, 2.22 and 2.24 of the Code.
Action Required:
The Committee noted that the advertisers had consulted with the Executive in the preparation of their new brochure and that the claims would not be used again. No further action was required in the case.
