Comparative Advertising

There are detailed rules in section 3 of the BCAP Code.

Objective claims, where there are identifiable and/or commonly-accepted criteria for measuring the accuracy of the claim (e.g. “the most fuel efficient car in the world”), must be supported by reliable evidence and should be qualified where appropriate (e.g. “the most energy-efficient electric car in the world”).

Claims which are based on what listeners are likely to regard as subjective opinion (e.g. “the best car in the world”) may be acceptable.

Comparative claims which aren’t based on factual evidence and seek to denigrate identifiable competitor/s are not acceptable.

Comparisons with other advertisers and products/services are acceptable where they are factual, rather than denigratory.

For comparative claims to be acceptable (e.g. ‘X brand washes whiter’), the advertiser must have demonstrated satisfactorily that its brand has been tested like-with-like against all other competitors and achieved superior results. Otherwise, the comparative claim needs to qualify how many or which other brands have been tested alongside the advertised brand and been shown to be less effective (e.g. ‘in tests against the three leading brands, X washed whiter’).

Verification
Ads that include a comparison with identifiable competitors must also include the means for listeners to verify that comparison, such as a URL pointing to verification data.

What signifies a comparison with identifiable competitors is broad. Claims such as “the biggest outdoor clothing shop in the North East” are making such a comparison against identifiable competitors. All other outdoor clothing stores would be included in the comparison being made and would therefore be identifiable. Following recent advice from CAP, we consider “one of the biggest…” style claims to also be making a comparison against identifiable competitors.

The call to action needs to be clearly about verification. “Verify at xyz.com…” would be acceptable, as would “see xyz.com/verify”. Less clear calls to action such as “see xyz.com for details” are unlikely to be acceptable.