10.04.2018

100% PURE NEW ZEALAND

Not all claims in advertising are meant to be taken literally.
However, when they are, they may be open to challenge as Tourism New Zealand has recently found out. Tourism New Zealand’s “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign has recently come under fire both internationally and locally, including a claim being brought before the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”).
Environmentalist Dr. Peter Nuttall lodged a complaint with the ASA in March this year regarding the campaign. The complaint was dismissed by the ASA Complaints Board and appealed by Dr. Nuttall in August. The basis of Dr Nuttall’s complaint was that research into New Zealand’s environment showed a degradation of its beaches, waterways and biodiversity thus making the campaign “misleading” and “unsubstantiated.”
Dr. Nuttall’s complaint was brought primarily under the ASA’s Code for Environmental Claims and secondly, under the ASA’s Code of Ethics. The objective of the Code for Environmental Claims is to ensure that advertisers and marketers develop and maintain rigorous standards when making environmental claims in advertising and to increase consumer confidence to the benefit of the environment, consumers and industry.
In determining whether the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign was in fact in breach of the Code for Environmental Claims, the Complaints Board said that the expression “100% Pure New Zealand” and the images combined with the accompanying text were contextually relevant to promoting New Zealand as a unique tourist destination. Despite Dr. Nuttall’s argument that “almost without exception, most commentators, whether they support the complaint or not see a strong environmental connection with the 100% Pure NZ Claim,” the Complaints Board held the expression “100% Pure New Zealand” was a positioning statement used to promote the unique experience New Zealand offered international tourists rather than a claim about New Zealand’s environmental purity. The advertisements did not imply that the environments featured were 100% pure, rather they implied that these scenes and places were a part of the unique visitor experience. The Complaints Board concluded that the Code for Environmental Claims had not been breached.
Under the Code of Ethics the Complaints Board considered whether or not the campaign contained anything which either directly or by implication, was likely to deceive or mislead the consumer or impair public confidence in advertising. The ASA also considered whether or not the campaign had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to both consumers and society. The ASA considered Tourism New Zealand’s response which quoted parts of a speech given by one of its former CEOs “the phrase ‘100% Pure New Zealand’ was the synthesis of everything we are – as a people, as a country and as an experience.” Tourism New Zealand then went on to say “when considered as part of the whole message, “pure” becomes synonymous with “genuine” and “authentic” – 100% authentic New Zealand.” The Complaints Board agreed with Tourism New Zealand and again held that “100% Pure New Zealand” was a positioning statement rather than an absolute claim of environmental purity.
Accordingly, Dr. Nuttall’s complaint was not upheld.
Arguably, the general public would never have regarded the campaign as literally meaning that everything in New Zealand was 100% pure, if for no other reason than it being practically impossible. However, the case shows that in some instances such claims can be considered in a literal sense and advertisers should take some care in this regard. The ASA decision ultimately has supported that claims should be considered in context and not be considered to have a wider application than was clearly meant.
Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry_100x100 1
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
When Actual Delay Losses Exceed Liquidated Damages
14.11.2018 Posted in Construction Law
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye…
When the employment relationship comes to an end, for whatever reason, there are still a few boxes to be ticked. So what needs to be done before you can bid each other a (hopefully) fond farewell?
5.11.2018 Posted in Employment Law
WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd: The Competent Contractor?
Defining health and safety duties in a contracting situation is rarely straightforward.
1.11.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Managing Partner Honoured with German Award
Erich Bachmann, the Managing Partner of Auckland based commercial law firm Hesketh Henry, has been awarded the Cross of the Order of Merit with Ribbon of the Federal Republic of Germany (Verdienstkreu...
30.10.2018
Building and Construction Law Journal
Construction partner, Nick Gillies, has been published in the latest Building and Construction Law Journal ((2018) 34 BCL 179).
18.10.2018 Posted in Construction Law
EBERT CONSTRUCTION: RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION
Introduction Following our Initial Note, the receivers of Ebert Construction Ltd (Ebert) released their first report on 1 October 2018.  Then, on 3 October 2018, Ebert put itself into liquidation, wi...
Pruning Back Liability: Do Contractual Arrangements Hold the Key?
The first defended hearing under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd, required the District Court to consider the ability of a business (a PCBU) to influe...
9.10.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.