ASA Adjudication on Specsavers Hearcare Group Ltd

Ad

A national press ad for Specsavers Hearcare Group was headlined "How can a pair of hearing aids cost £1,000 less at Specsavers than at Boots?". Further text continued "It's hard to believe, but it's a fact. In a recent survey of hearing aid prices by Keydata, researchers contacting Boots stores were quoted £2,232 for a pair of mid-range hearing aids. A comparable pair of hearing aids at Specsavers, with very similar specification and performance, cost just £995. But that wasn't the end of the story. A high spec hearing system was quoted at £4,649 in Boots stores while a comparable pair of hearing aids at Specsavers, again with very similar features and performance, cost just £1,595. That's over £3,000 less. In fact, right through the range, prices quoted by Boots were at least £705 more, even on lower specification products … Hearing services at Boots stores are provided by David Ormerod Hearing Centres, trading as David Ormerod Hearing Centres at Boots …". The ad included a table of comparison that summarised the specification and prices of the hearing products quoted in the text. Columns in the table were headed "Specsavers 'advance' digital range", "Key features", "Specsavers price per pair" and "Price at Boots for pair of comparable aids".

Issue

Boots and a member of the public believed the ad was misleading, because it implied the hearing services referred to were supplied by Boots.  They said David Ormerod Hearing Centres, not Boots, provided hearing care, but Boots let part of their store premises to David Ormerod Hearing Centres.  

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Specsavers Hearcare Group (Specsavers) explained that David Ormerod Hearing Centres (DOHC) used the Boots logo in all of their advertising and argued that that proved an association between them.  They believed DOHC deliberately used the Boots brand to add credibility to their offer, the link between the two companies was undeniable and the public perceived that link as fact.  They pointed out that the ad stated in the body copy "Hearing services at Boots stores are provided by David Ormerod Hearing Centres, trading as David Ormerod Hearing Centres at Boots" and explained that the text was taken directly from the DOHC website and point of sale material.  They believed they had used a true, and like-for-like, comparison.    

They pointed out that the ad was no longer appearing.    

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that Boots leased space in their stores to DOHC but also noted Boots were not involved in any aspect of the hearing services provided by DOHC; the hearing aid products sold by DOHC, and the price at which they were sold, were not determined by Boots.

We considered that readers would infer from the ad, particularly from its headline, that Boots provided hearing services and a direct comparison was being made between the hearing services offered by Specsavers and Boots.  In addition, we considered readers would infer from the ad that the price of hearing aids was set higher by Boots than by Specsavers, whereas we noted Boots had no involvement in determining the price at which the hearing aids referred to in the ad were sold.  While we understood that DOHC services were available inside Boots stores, because the relationship went no further, in that Boots were not involved in any aspect of the provision of the hearing services over and above leasing space to DOHC, the comparison was likely to cause confusion and to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.4 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).      

Action

We told Specsavers to ensure that future comparisons were accurate to avoid giving a misleading impression to consumers.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)