ASA Adjudicatjons and Sanctions

Sanctions

The vast majority of advertisers and broadcasters comply with ASA rulings; however, for the small minority who don’t, there are consequences.
The main aim of the system is to help ensure compliance with the Advertising Codes, rather than punish advertisers.  However, some of the sanctions at our disposal can be detrimental to those advertisers who choose to not comply.

One of the most persuasive is bad publicity – an advertiser’s reputation can be badly damaged if it is seen to be flouting the rules designed to protect consumers.

This is a page, expressing the ‘consciences’ of not following their guidance, although there is actually no outcome apart from (as quoted) ‘bad publicity’ and ‘reputation can be badly damaged’. This is interesting to me because there is persuasive language used, but the overall feel of the paragraph is stern, although there are no real results, it is written as if there are strong consequences.

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Sanctions.aspx

ASA Adjudication on Motorola Mobility UK Ltd

Motorola Mobility UK Ltd

Date: 24 August 2011 Number of complaints: 2

Advert: Shows the Motorola phone and says on the advert ‘The world’s most powerful smart phone’

Issue: Two people complained, arguing the Samsung Galaxy S II i9100 is more powerful, and the quote is misleading

Response:

Motorola Mobility Ltd (Motorola) said the ATRIX featured a Dual Core (2 x 1 Ghz) processor that provided a computer-like speed of operation and capability, 1GB of RAM that supported a high level of multi-tasking and crunching of graphical data, and a webtop solution and surrounding accessory ecosystem. They said, when the phone was docked into the unique HD dock or the standalone LapdockTM, it powered a full desktop browser, whilst providing support for cloud-based computing and full virtual Windows desktop via Citrix account. They said, although not promoted in the ad, the product’s battery was 20% more powerful than all known worldwide competitors, and could learn to read fingertips, providing more security and protection. They believed the combination of these technical features made the ATRIX the world's most powerful smartphone. They said, although the Samsung Galaxy S II i9100 had a slightly faster processor, it did not operate the unique computer-like accessory ecosystem that the ATRIX did. They said the ad did not claim the ATRIX’s processor was the fastest, but rather focused on the combined features of the performance and capability of the product.
Clearcast said it was Motorola's view that "the world's most powerful smartphone" was not based solely on RAM and processor speed, but rather a unique combination of features. They said these included the Dual Core processor, 1GB RAM, webtop and ecosystem, FLASH 10 PLAYER, qHD display, a 20% more powerful smartphone battery than all known current competitors on a world scale and a biometric reader.

Assessment

Upheld
The ASA noted Motorola said, in the context of the ad, the word “powerful” was used to refer to the combination of technical features of the ATRIX. We noted they said when the phone was docked into the unique HD dock or the standalone LapdockTM it powered a full desktop browser, whilst providing support for cloud-based computing and full virtual Windows desktop. However, while we acknowledged the ad showed the phone being used with other associated accessories, we considered viewers would understand the claim "The world's most powerful smartphone", along with a close-up of the phone, to mean the phone, in isolation, was the most powerful smartphone.
We noted Motorola and Clearcast said the ATRIX featured a processor that provided a computer-like speed, 1GB of RAM, crunching of graphical data, a webtop solution, surrounding accessory ecosystem and a biometric reader. We considered that, although these elements described the performance and capability of the product, they did not necessarily make the product powerful. We also noted they said the phone had a more powerful battery than all known worldwide competitors. However, we considered most viewers would understand the claim "The world's most powerful smartphone", in context to a smartphone, to mean that the product had, among other features, a faster processor than any other smartphone. Because the Samsung Galaxy S II i9100 had a faster processor than the ATRIX, we considered the claim "The world's most powerful smartphone" had not been substantiated by comparative evidence and concluded that it was misleading.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation), 3.12 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Comparisons).

Action

The claim "The world's most powerful smartphone" must not appear again.

This is interesting to me, mostly due to the response from Motorola, listing all the different types of ways in which the phone is powerful/ more powerful than other phones ‘20% more battery than any other phone’. And in the assessment they acknowledged the reference to the complainants ‘better phone’   (Samsung Galaxy S II i9100) saying how it actually had a faster processor.