Was "Britain's softest white" claim stale? Allied Bakeries challenged Hovis's "softest white" claim in various ads. Hovis had their survey, methodology and results ready when the Advertising Standards Authority came knocking, but did the tests withstand scrutiny?
Allied Bakeries - a division of ABF Grain Products Ltd - , Warburtons Ltd and one member of the public challenged whether the claims that the product had been voted Britain's softest white bread were misleading and could be substantiated.
Premier Foods Group Ltd (Premier Foods) explained that the claim that Hovis was voted Britain's softest white was based on a sample of 216 respondents who took part in a taste-test survey in November 2008, carried out by an independent market research company. Premier Foods said the survey was conducted in order to ensure that the taste-tests were representative of the bread available to the majority of the British public and to ensure fair comparability across the brands tested. They focused on the top three white bread brands which together account for over 70% of the pre-packed white bread sold in the UK.
Premier Foods submitted a copy of the survey, its methodology and results. They explained that all respondents were asked to try each of the three bread brands over a three-week period (one week for each brand) and rate them via a self-completion questionnaire. Respondents also underwent a recall interview at the end of each week and on completion of the trial, where a further blind taste test was carried out on a single slice of each product. Premier Foods said the survey showed that Hovis was rated significantly softer than the other two branded breads tested, and that they believed the claim had been substantiated.
Premier Foods said, although the flour used in their product at the time the ad appeared was from the new 2009 harvest, due to their milling processes it would have the same characteristics to the flour used in their products at the time the survey was carried out in 2008, which was confirmed by their quality assurance processes. Premier Foods said they carried out regular monitoring of the softness of their bread against their competitors' products, and their monitoring data over the last year did not indicate a step change in the performance of their own or their competitors' products in relation to softness. They provided copies of that monitoring data, and said they therefore believed the survey results and claim were still valid.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the survey was well-designed and had been carried out in November 2008 by third party researchers, and we understood that the three products tested would have been made using flour from that year's harvest. We also understood, however, that the recipe for one of the branded breads involved in the taste test had been changed in February 2009, and that at the time the ad appeared in October 2009 all three breads were made using the new 2009 harvest flour. We could not be certain therefore whether those changes would have affected the softness of the three products, and consequently how participants might have 'voted' if the survey had been carried out more recently.
We noted that Premier Foods carried out routine 'softness' monitoring, but we understood from the data provided that that monitoring was carried out in-house and based on a smaller data set than the survey. We considered that it was not clear from the data on what basis 'softness' was being measured, and nor did we consider that it was safe to assume from that data that the participants in the survey would have 'voted' in the same way, had the taste tests used breads currently available in store. Moreover, we noted that ad (a) did not state that the claim was based on a survey carried out in November 2008, and we considered that consumers who saw that ad might have thought that the taste tests were carried out on bread currently available to buy.
Notwithstanding the above, we understood that after trying each brand of bread, respondents in the taste-test survey were asked to rate the softness of that particular product on a scale of one to ten. We noted that Hovis received a better average softness score than the other two products, and we understood that Premier Foods had based the claim on those particular results.
However, we also understood from the survey that when respondents were directly asked, after trying all three products, which they liked best for the softness of the bread, the majority of respondents had not chosen Hovis. We considered that consumers would understand the claim that Hovis had been "voted" Britain's softest white bread to mean that the respondents had compared the three products and chosen Hovis over the other branded breads tested on the basis of its softness. Because we understood that was not the case, and because the survey had been carried out on branded breads using a different recipe and harvest flour to those available in store at the time the ad appeared, we concluded that the survey did not substantiate the claims made in the ads and that they were misleading.
The ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form.
