10-Sep-2015, 11:02
the ASA ruling seems based on legality, they dont attempt to make a judgement themselves on whether the product could have benefit (that's not their job, they only have to assess the complaint and the counter-evidence submitted by the advertiser).
They did recognise the content of the article, but ultimately reject it as 'evidence':
a) ....we did not consider a review in a magazine to be adequate evidence to substantiate the claim in the ad
b)....concluded that the claim had not been substantiated
The problem is that the benefit is quite subjective, so it will always be difficult to provide 'evidence'.
My reading of the article is that the ASA are bound to accept the complaint because Naim didn't offer sufficient, substantiated evidence to the contrary (and maybe they should not have primarily relied on a 3rd party magazine). The Naim test results obviously did not demonstrate "control of corrupting influence of mains power.."
Difficult. I completely agree with your comment "interesting that even a well-established and respected company like Naim could not produce convincing evidence".
I dont think they were singled out by the ASA; but interesting that there was only 1 complainant ! Obviously a Naim-hater....
They did recognise the content of the article, but ultimately reject it as 'evidence':
a) ....we did not consider a review in a magazine to be adequate evidence to substantiate the claim in the ad
b)....concluded that the claim had not been substantiated
The problem is that the benefit is quite subjective, so it will always be difficult to provide 'evidence'.
My reading of the article is that the ASA are bound to accept the complaint because Naim didn't offer sufficient, substantiated evidence to the contrary (and maybe they should not have primarily relied on a 3rd party magazine). The Naim test results obviously did not demonstrate "control of corrupting influence of mains power.."
Difficult. I completely agree with your comment "interesting that even a well-established and respected company like Naim could not produce convincing evidence".
I dont think they were singled out by the ASA; but interesting that there was only 1 complainant ! Obviously a Naim-hater....
_________________________________________________________________________
Aurender X100, Audiophilleo, Devialet 200, Verity Audio Parsifal Ovation Monitors
Leiden, the Netherlands
Aurender X100, Audiophilleo, Devialet 200, Verity Audio Parsifal Ovation Monitors
Leiden, the Netherlands
