These reports are case summaries of complaints which appeared to raise issues of substance in relation to the interpretation of the ITC Advertising Standards Code. Summary statistics of non-substantive complaints can be found in the full reports which are obtainable from the ITC.
MCDONALDS - 2 FOR 1
Complaint from: 40 viewers
Background
A series of commercials advertised a one-week McDonalds sales promotion. The first commercial in the campaign showed a man ordering an unspecified sandwich/burger and being handed two. He was told "It's buy one get one free ...". Accompanying audio stated "Starting Wednesday, it's buy one get one free week at McDonalds". Text stated: "Participating restaurants from 10.30am. See in store for details. While stocks last". This commercial ran for three days. The second commercial ran on the following day only and showed the same man entering the same restaurant, this time ordering a Big Mac and again being handed two items. Audio repeated that "It's buy one get one free week at McDonalds" and went on to state "Tomorrow only, buy one Big Mac and get another absolutely free". Text stated "Participating restaurants from 10.30am. See in store for details. While stocks last". Subsequent advertisements, running for one day each, followed the same format but referred to other products e.g. McChicken Sandwich. The complainants believed that the advertisements and in particular the first in the campaign were misleading because in their view the commercials had given the impression that the offer applied to the whole McDonalds range, when this was not in fact the case. Many had only discovered that it applied to specific products on specific days, and only after 10.30am on visiting their local McDonalds restaurant.
Assessment
The BACC stated that the first commercial had been intended to act as 'teaser', announcing the forthcoming offer in general terms. In its view, the second commercial, which was transmitted the day before the offer started, made clear that the offer applied to specific products on specific days only. The rest of the campaign followed this pattern making it clear what you would get and for how long. It believed that by the time the promotion actually began viewers would have been aware of the limits on the offer. There had been no reference to specific products in order to avoid confusion. A reference to "See in store for details" had been included to alert viewers to the need to check the full terms applicable to the offer.The ITC noted the aim of the first, generic, commercial and the fact that it had been intended that viewers would see this in conjunction with subsequent, product specific, versions before acting on the offer. However, the experiences reported by the complainants indicated that this had not been the case. Consequently, the first commercial had to be judged on its own merits. The ITC judged that the advertisement had been misleading as it had failed to indicate that the offer applied to specific products on specific days and not, as it had appeared, to all products on the menu. The general reference to "See in store for details" was inadequate to alert viewers to the main restrictions on the offer. The ITC therefore upheld the complaints made concerning this advertisement and directed that it should not be shown again in its present form. However, in relation to the other commercials it judged that these had made adequately clear the nature of the various product offers. It therefore did not uphold the complaints relating to these versions.The advertising was for a short-term promotion and ceased during the investigation.
Conclusion
Complaints upheld.
|