The ASA took expert advice. The expert said the independent test data supplied by Electrolux was reliable and of good quality.

The expert explained that suction power alone did not give the true measure of cleaning performance, even when measured at the nozzle for upright cleaners. He said the effectiveness of the brush roll or agitator was more significant, because it was that rotating element that loosened the dirt and brushed it into the nozzle. The expert explained that it was then the airflow and not suction power that became more relevant in transporting the dirt into the receptacle. The expert explained that suction power was a result of both suction (negative pressure) and airflow, and that it was possible to have a high suction power value with high suction and relatively low airflow or vice versa. He said it was the latter case that would be more conclusive in determining overall cleaning performance on floors. The expert pointed out that high suction power did not necessarily equate to good cleaning performance, and that equally a reduction in cleaning performance did not necessarily result from a reduction in suction power due to bag 'clogging'.

The expert believed the suction power test data submitted by Electrolux was not sufficient to support the claim that the Intensity gave an "intense deep clean", because it did not include test data relating to cleaning performance.

We noted the independent test data submitted by Electrolux. Although we had not seen up-to-date comparative sales figures to support the market leadership claim made in the ad, we acknowledged that the independent laboratory test data provided by Electrolux showed that, when tested in accordance with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 60312 clause 2.8, the Intensity did have 50% more suction power than Dyson's DC14 as well as the other vacuum cleaners that Electrolux had tested. Nevertheless, we understood that it was the effectiveness of the agitator and the measure of airflow, rather than suction power alone, that was most relevant in assessing a vacuum cleaner's cleaning performance. We understood that that was because the action of the agitator loosened the dirt and brushed it into the nozzle, and that it was airflow that then transported the dirt from the nozzle into the receptacle.

We considered that the claim made in the ad linked suction power to cleaning performance, and therefore implied that the "intense deep clean" provided by the Electrolux Intensity was as a result of the product's suction power. We also considered that, by linking the '50% more' suction power claim to the cleaning performance claim, the ad also implied that the Intensity cleaned better than the DC14 and the other tested vacuum cleaners. We noted that Electrolux had sent us data that related only to the suction power of the Intensity and not to its dust removal ability, and we therefore did not consider that those test results alone were sufficient to support the cleaning performance claim made in the ad. Because we had not seen data that measured the cleaning performance of the Intensity, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors).


Action