Asian Paints Limited - Asian Paints

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: Industry Member

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an option to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claims objected to in the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claims with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did avail and submitted their written response. The advertiser in their response stated that, “the paint is tested for crack bridging properties as per prescribed standards and found to be effective against hairline and shrinkage cracks. Royale Glitz paint has crack-bridging ability which leaves the paint film unaffected upon formation of cracks thus ensuring long-lasting and crack-free performance. The purpose of this Advertisement is to display the sheen, finish and performance of Royale Glitz – a decorative paint and this was conveyed with creative license, humour and exaggeration." As claim support data, the advertiser submitted the following documents: (1) Copy of Product Information Sheet of Royale Glitz, (2) Copy of European Standard Protocol for Determination of Crack Bridging Properties in Paints, Coating Materials And Coating Systems For Exterior Masonry And Concrete, (3) Copy of test report. The advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, was referred to an Independent technical expert of ASCI for an opinion in the matter. The expert’s opinion was then shared with the complainant and the advertiser for making additional submissions. The complainant did not respond to the expert’s opinion. The advertiser requested for additional time to review the expert's opinion. As a special gesture, the advertiser was granted this extension. They further submitted copy of the complete test report containing the additional information sought by the expert on the testing methodology, substrate used, number of samples, etc. The advertiser then provided copy of due diligence declaration from the celebrity Karan Johar’s agency, and due diligence letter from brand ambassador Deepika Padukone’s agency. On the advertiser’s request, a telecon/meeting was arranged with the technical expert and the ASCI Secretariat via zoom video conference. Post telecon with the technical expert, the advertiser submitted that, “the advertisement intends to convey the features of the paint, i.e. sheen, finish and performance of Royale Glitz – a decorative paint and this was conveyed with creative license, humour and exaggeration with the appropriate disclaimers where applicable.” The advertiser further referred to the third party test reports provided to substantiate the claim on cracks. The advertisement conveys the types of cracks the product claims to work on. The advertiser’s submissions were referred to the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the YouTube advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPi6z7TVY44 considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the advertiser has provided test report from a third-party test lab as per EN 1062-7:2004 (E), which is an European Standard for the determination of crack bridging properties for paints and other coatings. For the crack free performance claimed, the advertisement includes a disclaimer stating which cracks are covered by the product and where a consumer can obtain more information about the product. The CCC discussed that the test report confirms that the tested paint will bridge a 0.57 mm crack if the crack is created using the method described in the standard. There is technical support for crack-free performance for cracks up to 0.57 mm, which can be extended to hairline and shrinkage cracks. Hence the test report was found acceptable for the test of crack bridging properties. The CCC further discussed that the disclaimer in the advertisement restricts the claim of "crack-free performance" to hairline and shrinkage cracks. Based on the advertiser’s response with the supporting data provided, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Crack-Free* Performance”, was substantiated, and hence is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. The CCC further discussed that the advertisement shows a movie scene being filmed in a fictional setting. Hence, the consumers/viewers may not perceive the scenes in the advertisement which depict glass vase smashing, wine bottle smashing, metal rod banging, and metal claws scratching leaving the wall with no scratches, as realistic events. The product proposition - a decorative paint that offers crack-free performance is communicated through exaggeration in the advertisement. The advertisement also carries a disclaimer which says. “These stunts are performed by trained professionals in a controlled environment and should not be imitated especially by children.” Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that this complaint was NOT UPHELD.