News & Press Releases

20/5/2009

TriAx Advertising and Promotional Materials

Result of Adjudication by the UK Advertising Standards Authority

A competitor manufacturer submitted a complaint about our TriAx brochure with the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in August 2008. In particular they challenged;

1 -the claims "These tests... demonstrated that TriAx outperformed the best performing biaxial geogrids" and "SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO FUNCTIONALLY OUTPERFORM BIAXIAL GEOGRIDS" could be substantiated and

2 -The comparison made in the ad was verifiable.

We have had extensive communications with the ASA in the intervening period. We argued that the brochure sets out to compare TriAx with Tensar biaxial geogrids rather than the biaxial geogrids of other manufacturers. This point was not accepted by the ASA and they took the view that our brochure claimed that TriAx outperformed not only our own geogrids, but those of our competitors.

We then argued that, to the extent that the wording might be understood to refer to other products, we believed such comparisons were fair. i.e. TriAx outperforms other biaxial geogrids. We provided details of testing from TRL and BRE in support of this argument. We supplied results from one series of TRL testing that showed that TriAx outperforms Tensar SS geogrids, and results from two separate test series that demonstrated that Tensar SS geogrids outperformed competitor biaxial geogrids representing commonly available generic grid types.

If TriAx > Tensar SS, and Tensar SS > other biaxial geogrids; then TriAx > other biaxial geogrids. or in simple terms;

If T>S and S>B; then T>B

We also argued in response to point 2. above, that although we had not included references to the test data in the brochure, our target market would know that they could approach us for substantiation.

Unfortunately these arguments did not fully satisfy the ASA and they have upheld the complaint made by Naue. In their adjudication the ASA acknowledge that our test data originates from reputable sources. However, without side by side testing, they did not accept that we had demonstrated that TriAx outperforms all other geogrids. They also pointed out that in one particular test (static load testing at BRE), TriAx TX160 performed similar to Tensar SS30 biaxial geogrid and not better.

We accept that our claims for TriAx in the brochure were too broad. We should have been more specific.

This brings us to the second challenge upheld by the ASA, that relating to verification.

The ASA have ruled that our advertising did not direct readers to a source from which they could verify the basis of our comparison with competitor products. We accept this was the case. This is an important interpretation of advertising rules and we will take account of this and place references to the source of our data in future advertising materials.

In anticipation of this outcome, we have already made changes to our TriAx advertising material in the UK. Future re-prints of the TriAx brochure and any advertising will ensure that we comply with the ASA ruling.

A few useful facts.

1.The ASA are not saying that the data on TriAx presented to them was incorrect.

2. The ASA acknowledge that the test data was from reputable testing authorities.

3. Although we provided results from side-by-side testing of TriAx vs Tensar SS30 and separately, results for side-by-side testing of Tensar SS30 vs leading competitor geogrids, we were unable to provide data from a single test series in which TriAx was tested alongside our competitors’ products.

4. Our test data did demonstrate that TriAx outperformed Tensar biaxial geogrids, The ASA found that only in one instance, did the Tensar SS30 biaxial geogrid perform “at least as well” as the TriAx. This remark relates to the BRE static load testing over a sand subgrade, in which a stone subbase reinforced with Tensar SS30 performed similarly to the lightest grade of TriAx tested. In the same report the heavier grade of TriAx tested performed “significantly greater” than the SS30.

5. There is published data demonstrating that Tensar SS30 geogrids outperform competitor products – including Secugrid 60, Enkagrid 40, Telegrid 40 and Tenax LBO330. THE PERFORMANCE OF REINFORCED UNPAVED SUB-BASES SUBJECTED TO TRAFFICKING* G. R. A. Watts and D. I. Blackman. Transport Research Laboratory Limited, Crowthorne, United Kingdom C. G. Jenner. Tensar International Limited, Blackburn, United Kingdom

6. Since the start of the adjudication process TIL has commissioned a new series of trafficking testing at TRL. The results of this clearly confirm that Tensar TriAx outperformed Tensar biaxial geogrids. The results will be made available shortly.

*In the above referenced paper the authors incorrectly referred to the product ‘Fornit 40/40'. The product tested was in fact Fornit '30/30'