AM Online

Paint protection firms told to withdraw unsubstantiated claims on brochures and websites

Two paint protection companies have been told to amend their marketing materials after they failed to prove product claims to the advertising watchdog.

Claims by GardX and Jewelultra that their motor paint protection products help to protect against damage from bird droppings have been judged misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority.

It means that current point of sale materials and sales procedures used in car dealerships could need changing.

After a challenge was initiated by Autoglym, a rival car care and paint protection provider, the ASA asked GardX and Jewelultra to provide evidence to support their marketing claims.

In its official statement, the ASA said GardX had tested the efficacy of its product against acidic and alkaline solutions. However their material specifically claimed it could delay the corrosive effect of bird droppings and therefore the ASA expected GardX’s evidence to have tested for performance in that regard.

However such tests had not been conducted, and did not meet a recognised ISO standard assessment, so the ASA has concluded GardX's bird dropping protection claim has not been substantiated.

Jewelultra said its Diamondbrite product was tested during development in the late 1980s in relation to resistance to bird dropping damage and, although it no longer had copies of those test reports,  its claims of proven to protect against bird dropping were based on those results.

It provided a technical report of independent tests conducted in 2011 related on its ability to protect against general weathering, but this had not tested against bird droppings.

The ASA said advertisers must hold documentary evidence to substantiate claims, and Jewelultra had failed to do so, therefore it ruled the claims could not be substantiated.

Both GardX and Jewelultra have been told not to allow the claims to appear again in their current form.

Jewelultra said it has now commissioned tests specifically in relation to whether Diamondbrite protects against bird droppings.

Paint protection products are a favoured add-on sale for sales executives due to the profit margins they can provide.

Autoglym chief executive Paul Caller said consumers have a right to expect products to deliver on their promises, and this raises an important issue for retailers and dealerships as to whether they can risk potential damage to their reputation if they choose to sell products that have been judged to mislead customers.

“We believe it is vital to be clear and accurate with customers and are pleased that suppliers of paint protection products in the UK will now be required to operate on a fair and level playing field," Caller added.

 

If you are not a registered user your comment will go to AM for approval before publishing. To avoid this requirement please register or login.

Comment as guest


Login  /  Register

Comments

  • max - 08/08/2013 14:16

    Another product that doesn't do what it says on the tin - and the motor industry carries on blindly. **edited for legal reasons**

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Justin Boseley - 08/08/2013 15:20

    **edited for legal reasons**.The ASA has seen over 2 months ago test by Independant company Intertek which clearly proved the Diamondbrite does protect against bird lime and they have had these test in their hands at least 1 month before reviewing the case, but they have chosen to ignore this. Also we had 21 days to appeal to the adjudication which would have taken us up to the 14th August, but they chose to publish today, the 8th August. Something does not smell right with Autoglym and the ASA. In the hands of the courts as I understand.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Rob Taylor - 08/08/2013 22:54

    Aren't there products out there that also suggest they are used by NASA and on planes? Be interested to know if NASA can confirm that???

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Chris Westcott - 09/08/2013 09:51

    Hang on... so a competitor company is kicking off? It sounds like a pretty underhand tactic to damage the competition instead of break into the market through producing a truly better product. Compete on being better, not on attacking others. From reading this article it actually appears that Jewelultra have done tests and are doing further tests in response to this issue. Ie, the right thing to ensure they comply with any ASA requirements. I'd be interested to see whether there is a link between the author of this "article" and Autoglym in some way.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
    • Justin Boseley - 09/08/2013 14:28

      @Chris Westcott - very likely to be a coincidence but there is a surname connection between the lady who carried out the ASA investigation and the people who made the complaint. When we asked the lady from the ASA about this, the response we got was "We will not be answering your request".

      Reply as guest

      Login  /  Register
  • max - 09/08/2013 11:08

    when will your industry learn not all punters are stupid.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
    • Chris Westcott - 09/08/2013 11:16

      @max - "your industry"? Not mine - I'm a Software Engineer that has worked in many industries but not this one. I have however had to work to many standards and close to governing bodies. This article is hog-wash and you're even too afraid to leave your real name.

      Reply as guest

      Login  /  Register
    • max - 09/08/2013 12:23

      @Chris Westcott - my error, post was not for you per say, but a general post. yup its all hog-wash. my own reasons for using my first name only. its not my industry either.

      Reply as guest

      Login  /  Register
  • Chris Westcott - 09/08/2013 11:54

    Really this article should be taken down or edited in light of further news. For those that came here pre-edit note the following: http://www.am-online.com/news/2013/8/9/paint-protection-supplier-responds-to-advertising-watchdog-s-misleading-ruling/33411/

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • G60Tim - 09/08/2013 12:00

    Chris, the article already contains a link at the words "commissioned tests" in the 11th paragraph to the more recently published article with Jewelultra's response and report.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
    • Chris Westcott - 09/08/2013 12:06

      @G60Tim - the tone of this article is damning of both Jewelultra and GardX. Clearly Jewelultra didn't run out to have their product tested yesterday. It would have made more sense to get in touch with parties mentioned here for a balanced article. You would have had the information up front then.

      Reply as guest

      Login  /  Register