Home > Current News > New Decisions: Vehicle Comparisons, Elaborate Coffins and More

New Decisions: Vehicle Comparisons, Elaborate Coffins and More

The following decisions were published on the ASA website on 5 December 2016:

Entry-Level Vehicle Pricing Not Misleading Due to Disclaimers

A Volkswagen New Zealand television and YouTube advertisement for Tiguan vehicles was backgrounded with drum beats and shows the vehicles from various angles and being driven. The words “Sharp new look” appear on the screen then “162kW GTI Engine*” The words “4MOTION all-wheel drive*” and “personalised technology” also flash on the screen and finally an image of the front of the car appears with the words: “All-new Tiguan from $41,990*” with, at the bottom of the screen, the message: “*Plus on road costs. 4MOTION & 162 kW GTI engine on selected models only.”

A complaint said the Tiguan television advertisement was misleading because it promoted the Tiguan as having all-wheel drive and a high-power engine from $41,990 when in fact the cheapest car with all-wheel drive was $57,990 and the top high power engine model was $66,990. The Complainant said they had seen a disclaimer at the end of the advertisement but the overwhelming impression they had was that those features were available at that price.

The Advertiser said

“Our brand vision is to make Volkswagen cars accessible to as many people as possible, so our common approach is to showcase some of the higher spec features available to those with bigger budgets, while also showcasing it accessibility by highlighting the entry-level price.”

A majority of the Complaints Board said the advertisement did not breach the Code of Ethics due to the asterisks alerting the consumer to the disclaimer that noted only the top model vehicles had all-wheel drive and high power engines and the price was higher. The majority of the Complaints Board accepted the advertisement clearly stated the cost of the Tiguan vehicles ranged “from” $41,990* and this price was clearly the base cost for a range of vehicles with escalating specifications and the asterisks legitimately alerted consumers to qualifying statements. A minority of the Complaints Board disagreed.  In accordance with the majority, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.

Pimped-Up Coffin Deemed OK

MyRepublic’s mail campaign for an internet broadband package, included the words “Gigabit fibre is here with 6 months half price” and the slogan “We know no limits.” The other side of the card included an image of a smartly dressed man with his hands on a laptop, lying in a coffin with the words “lol in peace” and “Sign up to be in to win this fully pimped internet ready coffin.” The coffin contained various electronic gear.
The Complainant said their family and friends had found the advertisement in very poor taste. They felt it would be very upsetting to many people, especially to people who had recently lost a loved one.

The Advertiser said the advertisement was a Halloween promotion intended to make the point that they would go to extremes to deliver the fastest fibre internet. The Advertiser explained:

“The [advertisement] shows the coffin (the prize up for grabs) with a person who, at first glance, looks deceased. However at closer inspection our character is in fact, alive and using his laptop. The out-take being – he’s been using the coffin’s internet so much, that he hasn’t seen the light of day for some time and has gone pale and corpse-like, much like many gamers.”

The majority of the Complaints Board agreed the advertisement could have upset people who had recently suffered a bereavement but acknowledged the advertiser had made an effort not to send the advertisements to some of these households by checking the mailing data against recent deaths. The view was that the advertisement was an attempt at black humour. While in questionable taste, the majority of the Complaints Board agreed the advertisement was not in breach of the Code of Ethics.  In accordance with the majority, the Complaints Board ruled the Complaint was Not Upheld.