Print This Post
Bulletin: 22/4
Batch: 280
Reference: 38787
Product: Leisure
Advertiser: Dollard Pizza
Influencer:
Agency:
Medium: Internet (Company's Instagram page)
Codes:
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10, 4.33
The advertisement was promoted on the complainant’s Instagram feed and consisted of an image and a caption below it.
The image featured the advertisers’ name, “1856 – Dollard Pizza – Dublin” at the top as well as pictures of various slices of pizza. Written in the centre of the image was “Dublin’s Best New York Style Pizza” with a link below to “Learn More”.
The caption beneath the image read “Get a slice of the action! New York Style Pizza delivered straight to your door. Enjoy 12” Full Pizza or by the jumbo slice. Order Here”.
The complainant considered that the advertising was misleading as he said that he could not find any substantiation behind the claim ‘Dublin’s Best New York Style Pizza’.
The advertisers explained that Dollard Pizza was launched in 2017 with the goal of providing the most delicious New York Style pizza cooked fresh and onsite using locally sourced ingredients, a stone-baked pizza oven and the finest of pizza chefs. They said they were committed to serving their pizza in the same manner as a New York style servery (i.e. by the slice for takeaway or consumption on their premises).
The advertiser said that there were no prescribed standards or indications for New York style pizza which were regulated by an independent third-party entity in Ireland and that, therefore, the matter as to what constitutes the best New York style pizza was subjective and a matter of opinion. They considered that an ordinary consumer would be reasonably capable of identifying that the assertions made in the advertisement by a food company are a matter of opinion.
The advertisers said that the absence of an independent entity to verify the best New York style pizza could be readily ascertained by a cursory internet search. They considered that viewers could ascertain that the advertisement in question was a statement made by the producer of the product and was therefore more appropriately an invitation to a customer to form their own opinion on the assertion made rather than an objective truth. They said that they made no apologies for proudly promoting Dollard Pizza and invited their customers to experience their New York Style Pizzas for themselves.
In light of their response and submission, the advertisers believed that the advertisement at the subject of this complaint was not misleading and had at all times adhered to the spirit of the Code and therefore requested that the complaint be dismissed.
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Committee noted the Code requirement that a claim that any product is superior to others should only be made where there is clear evidence to support the claim. Wording which implies superior or superlative status – such as, “number one”, “leading”, “largest”, or similar – should be capable of substantiation with market share data or similar proof. (4.33).
The Committee noted that the advertising contained a superlative claim for which substantiation had not been received and they considered therefore that the advertising was in breach of Code Section 4.33.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.