A complaint that a DVS (Domestic Ventilations Systems) television advertisement was incorrect and misleading in saying it could help prevent flu has been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.
The ad asked: "Will your home be freezing this winter, leading to flu and asthma?"
Complainant T Braisher objected, saying that a cold home could not possibly cause influenza. Influenza was caused by a virus and a DVS system might help your health in all sorts of ways but it could not stop you catching flu.
The DVS company should not be allowed to imply that its product could prevent influenza, he said.
DVS disagreed, saying research conducted by Otago University and the World Health Organisation, among others, indicated that unhealthy homes could make you sick.
All the research came to the same conclusion: "Ear ache, throat infection, bronchitis, asthma and flu were an everyday consequence of living in cold, damp homes".
Also the research recommended a minimum temperature of 18degC in homes and said that many New Zealand homes fell as much as 6degC below this in winter, causing occupants to become sick.
"We certainly do not promote that a DVS system can prevent you catching the flu, but we do promote insulation, heating and ventilation as key ingredients towards a healthy, more comfortable home," DVS said.
Advertising agency, Just One Limited, which ran the ad on TV also responded to the complaint by stating that "leading to flu and asthma" was really just a way of finding a shorthand for exacerbating flu and asthma symptoms".
"Its intention was not to mislead but rather, in the limited time we had in a 30-second ad, to communicate that a damp, cold house could worsen flu and asthma symptoms and hinder a quick recovery."
The authority accepted the advertiser was trying to draw attention to its products and services in a way that highlighted the benefits of a properly insulated/heated and ventilated home.
However, the specific inclusion of "flu", and the implication that DVS's products and services could help prevent it, was not substantiated. It ruled the ad to be misleading.
Also, the board said the ad had not been prepared with the required sense of social responsibility to consumers and society and was in breach of the code of ethics.
