Advertising Standards Authority finds Heathrow advert about increased trade breaches their code and is ‘misleading’

Date added: February 4, 2015

In October 2014 about 13 people send in official complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, on claims being made by Heathrow in its adverts. The ASA looked at 7 different complaints, and considered that 6 passed their standards. However, on the claim by Heathrow in its ads headed:”Expand Heathrow and its’s the economy that takes off” the statement “Direct flights to long-haul destinations build twenty times more trade with them than indirect flights” was found to breach the ASA code. The ASA say the claim was not adequately substantiated and that the ad therefore breached the Code, both by being misleading and by not having proper substantiation. The ASA say the advert “must not appear again in its current form.” They have told Heathrow “to ensure that they held robust substantiation for absolute claims made in their future advertising.” The ASA ruling also says the claim was presented as objective facts rather than an educated assumption and that Heathrow’s own report “One Hub or None”itself cautioned that direct flights would not automatically lead to more trade and that multiple factors could influence the amount of bilateral trade.

.

Tweet

Advertising Standards Authority finds Heathrow advert ‘misleading’

4.2.2015

In a ruling released today the Advertising Standards Authority found that one of the recent adverts used by Heathrow Airport was “misleading”. It said that the claim “Direct flights to long-haul destinations build twenty times more trade with them than indirect flights” could not be substantiated.

John Stewart, chair of the campaign group HACAN, which opposes a new runway, said, “There is no excuse for a company the size of Heathrow, able to afford expensive lawyers, to mislead in this way. Let’s argue the case for and against the third runway on the facts”

The ASA ruling can be read at http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2015/2/Heathrow-Airport-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_278727.aspx#.VNICQmjkfuo

The complaints about the Heathrow adverts

There were apparently 13 complaints about various Heathrow adverts, in October 2014.

They were looking at a total of 7 adverts, in the press (3), a bus stop ad, ads on the Tube (2) and an email.

There were 7 specific issues for complaints.

Of those 7, the ASA is not upholding (ie. siding with Heathrow) 6 of them. But it has decided to uphold (ie. against Heathrow) on one.

The advert on which the claim is being upheld ( in the ASA draft) is one from the Tube which the ASA records as:

“The second Tube ad was headed: “Expand Heathrow and its’s the economy that takes off” and stated: “If we want Britain’s economy to keep growing, we need to grow Heathrow {…} By 2050 nearly half of global GDP will be generated in emerging markets like China, India and Brazil {…} Direct flights to long-haul destinations build twenty times more trade with them than indirect flights. And only an expanded Heathrow can make direct long haul flights to those destinations viable {…} A new runway here can deliver at least £100 billion in economic benefits to the UK (not to mention more than 120,000 new jobs).”

The ASA says on this complaint:

“One complainant challenged whether the claim “Direct flights to long-haul destinations build 20 times more trade with them than indirect flights” in advert (f) “

The response by Heathrow airport to the ASA on this point

The response from Heathrow airport on this point, to the ASA, is summarised by the ASA as:

7. Heathrow provided the Frontier Economics reports “UK Trade and the importance of connectivity,” highlighting a section that stated (in relation to emerging markets) “UK business trade 20 times as much with countries where there are daily flights than with those with less frequent or no direct service” and “One Hub or None” that contained a very similar statement. These statements were accompanied by two graphs that mapped time in years against value of trade in dollars and an index of growth in trade. The graphs showed a sharper general upward trend for destinations with daily flight connections than for those with poor connectivity. A third report, the background data behind the “One Hub or None” document, stated that emerging markets with connections to other European hubs, but not with the UK, traded more with those countries. It gave the example of Indonesia, with which the UK trades imports and exports with a value of 0.11% of GDP, but with which Germany and the Netherlands on average trade a value of 0.3% of GDP.

The ASA says:

“The ASA considered that, although it appeared in the context of an ad primary composed of the advertiser’s arguments for the expansion, the claim as it was stated was presented as objective facts rather than an educated assumption and that consumers would therefore expect it to be capable of robust substantiation. We noted that the report provided by Heathrow in support of this claim based the “twenty times” figure on the value of trade with the emerging markets that had either daily or better direct flight connections to the UK or “poor connectivity” (which although unspecified we understood to mean less frequent direct flights and/or daily indirect connections) we considered that consumers were likely to understand the claim as a comparison between business generated when taking a direct or indirect flight to the same destination but that the actual comparison between those destinations the daily direct flights and others with poorer connectivity. We also considered that the claim implied that the direct flights were the cause of the increased monetary value of trade with these emerging markets whereas other factors such as the relative economic development of those countries with and without daily direct flights would also impact upon trade value. We noted that the background report to “One Hub or None”itself cautioned that direct flights would not automatically lead to more trade and that multiple factors could influence the amount of bilateral trade and did not explain how the 20 x figures was arrived at due to the discrepancies between how the claim was likely to be understood and what is supporting evidence stated, as well as the lack of explanation for how to 20 x figure was calculated, we concluded that the claim was not adequately substantiated and that the ad therefore bleached the Code.



On this point ad (f) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).”

“Action.

No further action required with regard to ads (a) – (e) and (g). Ad (f) must not appear again in its current form. We told Heathrow Airport Ltd to ensure that they held robust substantiation for absolute claims made in their future advertising.”

The points on which the complaints were not upheld by the ASA are (in summary):

1. ..challenged ….”claims relating to the dependency of the growth of the British economy on the Heathrow expansion, and some of whom considered that this was presented as being to the exclusion of other plans, challenged whether the ads were misleading.”

2. ……” concerned about the effect of the Heathrow expansion on climate change, challenged whether references to benefit for future generations in ads (b) and (e) were misleading.”

3. . challenged….”whether the claims relating to £100 billion of economic benefits and 120,000 jobs created by the expansion in ads (a, b, d, f and g) were misleading and could be substantiated.”

4. .. challenged ….”claims “Britain’s exporters desperately need direct access to all these burgeoning markets. And only one British airport can provide it” in ad (a) and “And only an expanded Heathrow can make direct long haul flights to those destinations viable” in ad (f) were misleading and could be substantiated.”

5. “One complainant, who understood that there was not strong support for a German hub airports, challenged whether the claim “They have the hub capacity. They have the will to grow it. And they have the wholehearted government support to take what could be Britain’s” in ad (a) was misleading and could be substantiated. “

6. “… challenged whether the claims “Expanding Heathrow ill benefit millions of people” and “the benefits of expanding it will be open to everyone who lives here” in ad (c) were misleading and could be substantiated.”

7. [Upheld]

“…challenged whether the claim “Direct flights to long haul destinations build twenty times more trade with them than indrect flights” in ad (f) was misleading and could be substantiated.”

Share this:











Posted: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015. Filed in General News, News about Airports, Recent News.