To get the recommended amount of calories for a day, an average woman would have to eat five Huel portions, the ASA added.
That would cost about £350 a month, while an average man would need to eat more.
They seem to have taken it directly from the ASA website,
We noted that one portion of Huel contained 400 calories, and therefore, in order for consumers to meet the average daily recommended calorie intakes, an adult woman would need to consume five portions per day and an adult male would need to consume slightly over six portions per day. For women, 150 portions of Huel across an average month of 30 days would cost around £350 (with more portions, at a greater cost, for men).
That can’t be right, can it? It’s basing the average calories for a woman on the standard 2000 calories, and a Huel portion being 400 calories.
Assuming we are talking about the Huel 3.0 power (the advert in question mentions £1.51 a meal), a month of 2000 calories which was 31 days would still only be £1.51x5x31=£234.
(As an aside, if you buy in bulk and assume a month is 30 days that becomes £1.26x5x30=£189, but that’s less relevant to the ad).
In a society riven with targeted disinformation and fake news it seems like a luxury to have nit-picking investigations into adverts for potential money-saving ideas, when it’s surely up to the customer to decide on price and budget according to their individual circumstance.
It can’t be misleading in general to claim that Huel can save money. It depends entirely on what purchases it replaces.
The ASA must have a very low opinion of consumers’ ability in reading comprehension. Maybe that’s it. We’re all idiots.
Hey everyone, as our community of Hueligans we want to be transparent and keep you updated with this.
An Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) complaint has been made and held up against us in the United Kingdom. The reason why our advert did not meet relevant standards was that it mentioned “An entire month’s worth of Huel works out at less than £50.” We have attached a screenshot of the advert below for context.
It could easily be thought that the above refers to food for the whole month when we meant one Huel meal per day. We were of the belief that the advert copy below which said “34 meals for £1.51” was clear enough, however, we were wrong.
We have taken on the feedback we received immediately and removed the adverts in question; as we take our responsibilities under the CAP code seriously, we have also actioned everything ASA has asked of us.
Since day one, our mission has been to make nutritionally complete, convenient, and affordable food and we will continue to do so.
Thank you for your understanding and continued support. If you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask and we’ll do our best to answer them.
I agree. I think Huel have been doubly unlucky here.
Firstly, on the advert, Huel seem to be in a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. Huel state in many places on their website that Huel is often used for a meal or two a day, and the ad is pretty clearly stating it applies to one meal a day. But the perception of people drinking nothing but Huel shakes all day (of which there are some, but not the majority) seems strong enough to have to outright state that’s not what they are talking about, which seems unfair. If you advertise a sandwich, you don’t have to clarify that it’s not being eaten exclusively all day, and Huel even state on the ad it only applies to one meal.
Secondly, my reason for making this topic. The articles and ASA are dramatically overstating the cost of having nothing but Huel, and if I were Huel I would complain about that.
I am a long term user…I love Huel product and ethos, but I can understand that someone who didn’t know the products and happened upon the advert could be confused by it. Some people are confused by oat milk being called milk, and veggie burgers being called burgers, so ya gotta be mindful of that.
