In this week's post, we bring you key updates from ASA rulings which: (i) highlight the wider cultural concerns to consider when using untargeted advertising in major cities; and (ii) will have implications for brands making green claims.

Burning Money: The New Way to Save? 

What was complained about? Posters on London's public transport depicted a man (dressed in a thawb) holding a briefcase filled with burning US and Euro banknotes. The ads, for Wahed Investments Ltd., encouraged viewers to “join the money revolution”. Seventy-five complainants (a larger number than most ASA rulings we see) challenged whether the ads were offensive. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. Whilst the ASA acknowledged the advertisers' intent to depict people's money ‘going up in flames’, they concluded that the ads were likely to cause serious offence. Advertising on the TfL network is untargeted and will be seen by a vast number of people, including tourists. The ASA highlighted that visitors from the US and Eurozone would have therefore seen the ads, and were likely to be offended by a symbol of their national identity being defaced. 

What are the ramifications? Untargeted media always poses issues for advertisers. This ruling potentially adds a further consideration, namely location (such as central London) where a wider variety of cultural and societal groups may view the ads. This ruling suggests that the ASA is likely to see ads depicting damage to national symbols (such as currency) as offensive (it therefore may be that a more generic depiction of nondescript money in flames would be permissible). Readers of this blog may be interested to note that, in the UK, defacing a banknote is illegal whereas there is no express prohibition on the burning of paper banknotes issued by the Bank of England. 

ASA grounds eDreams's eco-friendly flights of fancy 

What was complained about? Ads from the travel agency eDreams depicted a jungle with the text "PUERTO RICO A sustainable destination" and included the statement "Discover our sustainable trips". The ASA (operating via its AI ad monitoring scheme) queried whether these claims were misleading.

What was the ruling? Upheld. eDreams asserted that the sustainability claims (i) would be understood as a reference to the "future, social and environmental impact" of the destination itself, rather than the "environmental impact of reaching the destination"; and (ii) were based on a number of destination-focused sustainability criteria. However, the ASA require any claims using the word “sustainable” to be substantiated to a high degree (given the the absolute nature of such a claim).

What are the ramifications? Advertisers are reminded that aspects of a product or service cannot be cherry-picked so as to be branded "sustainable" - the whole supply chain must  be sustainable (and the advertiser must be able to substantiate this) to permit use of this absolute term. Advertising copy should be clearly assessed to include clear wording, explanations and/or qualifications for any environmental claims. Claims such as “green”, “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” are seen by the ASA as absolute and require a significant degree of full lifecycle substantiation, whereas lesser claims such as “greener”, “sustainable accommodation” may be more appropriate where these can also be substantiated.  As with previous ASA rulings, such substantiation must be to the entire trip and not just to an aspect thereof - see ASA rulings summary, 27 March & 3 April - pains in the artificial grass, gender stereotypes fails and closing down bank ads, Alex Lowe, Georgina Doukanaris, Amneek Thiara.

Lloyds’ Green Scene: ASA Finds Bank’s Eco Ads Mostly on the Money

What was complained about? A series of adverts for Lloyds' Bank : (i) one highlighting Lloyds' financing of a business using seaweed to make packaging: (i) two ads promoting a partnership between Lloyds' and ‘Projects for Nature’ ; and (iii) a final ad detailing steps Lloyds was taking to reduce its carbon footprint and support renewable energy, were challenged as misleading due to the claim that Lloyds' was making overly broad environmental claims and omitting significant information about Lloyds’ overall contributions to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.

What was the ruling? First three ads – Not Upheld; Fourth ad – Upheld. The ASA found that: (i) the first ad highlighted Lloyds' supporting business growth; and (ii) the second and third ads made limited claims about Lloyds' contributions to nature recovery projects (and not broader statements about Lloyds' own green credentials). As such they were not upheld. However, the ASA found the fourth ad to have made a wider claim of contributing towards a low carbon economy. In particular, the ASA found that Lloyds' claim of putting the 'weight of [its] financing' into renewable energy' required further context to avoid being misleading. Lloyds' did not do this as they omitted significant information about their overall CO2 contributions and greenhouse gas emissions.

What are the ramifications? This ruling demonstrates options for brands when showcasing  their green efforts and partnerships. Businesses can promote their green credentials by focusing on particular initiatives in a clear and factual manner, taking care with text and imagery not to make (or be seen to make) wider or absolute claims. Providing links to detailed reports, press releases or additional information can assist advertisers with ensuring that claims in adverts are understood by consumers in a limited and non-misleading way. However, it is unlikely that key clarifications ‘buried’ in a link would prevent the ASA deeming wide claims made or implied by an ad from being misleading and, as ever with green claims, caution is advised. 

As always, for a detailed breakdown of the dos and don'ts of making green claims across 32 jurisdictions see our “Green Claims Guide” here - Environmental Advertising Claims Guide, John Wilks, Stefan Engels, Philipp Eichenhofer, Liam Blackford, Hannah Potter.