The Automotive Aftermarket's Only
Independant News Source!

Following a challenge lodged by rival tiremaker Bridgestone, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended that Michelin modify or discontinue certain advertising claims for the Hydro-Edge tire. Michelin is appealing the NAD decision to the National Advertising Review Board.

NAD, an advertising industry self-regulatory forum, examined claims made by Michelin in print, broadcast and Internet advertising, as well as in a brochure provided to tire dealers. While the brochure referenced in the NAD inquiry has been discontinued and is no longer in circulation, Michelin reportedly intends to continue to disseminate the claims included in the brochure. Therefore, NAD reviewed those claims on the merits. Claims at issue included:
• “More miles. More fuel efficiency. More than what you pay for.”
• “33,000 miles longer” tire life.
• Brakes “14 feet shorter.”
• “#1” in fuel efficiency; “Longer lasting, more fuel efficient.”
• “Best-in-its-class” for “safety, durability, fuel efficiency and utility.”

NAD says it was concerned with whether the basis of comparison for the superiority claims found throughout the brochure for various Michelin tires were clearly limited to the objects of the comparison or were likely to be interpreted more broadly. NAD noted that the brochure featured asterisks and endnotes to point the reader to disclosures. However, NAD found that, unless the endnotes were carefully read and understood, a dealer could easily take away inaccurate and unsupported messages. NAD recommended that the disclosures, whether they appear in a brochure or any other format in future advertising, be referenced in a clear and conspicuous manner and appear in immediate proximity to the claims being qualified.

More specifically, NAD recommended that Michelin, in charts included in the brochure, discontinue references to “competition” or “other tires” and, in future ads, avoid communicating a comparison to all competing tires if the comparison is limited to particular tires.

NAD also recommended that the “sacrifice” claims (e.g., “You can choose a tire other than the [MICHELIN Tire], but this is what you sacrifice”) be discontinued or modified to make clear the basis of comparison. As for the fuel efficiency update chart, NAD recommended that the “Reduced CO2” column be modified to read “Reduced CO2 vs. Competitive Tire” to avoid conveying the unsupported message that reduced CO2 emissions are as compared to all competing tires.

NAD determined that the placement of the print advertisement within the brochure was not problematic, although NAD noted that the claims in the print advertisement must be accurate. NAD recommended that Michelin either discontinue the claim “More miles. More fuel efficiency. More than what you pay for” — presented as the headline in print advertising — or modify it to ensure that consumers understand the claim applies only to the advertiser’s HydroEdge tire.

NAD further recommended that Michelin take steps to assure that the basis of comparison for all website advertising is clear.

Following its review of the broadcast advertising at issue, NAD found that it was not problematic with respect to the object of the comparison and that the language in the disclosure — “Fuel savings are estimates over 55,000 miles based on comparative rolling resistance testing of Michelin Energy Saver A/S tires versus Bridgestone Turanza EL 4000 tire. Actual on road savings may vary” — complies with prior NAD recommendations.

Michelin, in a statement, said it disagreed with NAD’s findings regarding claims made for the HydroEdge tire and will appeal those findings to the National Advertising Review Board. “Michelin looks forward to working with the NAD in the future to continue to ensure consumers are clearly and accurately informed as they make their tire purchases,” the company said.