ASA Adjudication on Dreams Plc

Ad

a. A regional press wraparound ad, for Dreams, stated "MASSIVE NEW STORE Dreams Margate GRAND OPENING SALE at Broadstairs Retail Park HUGE CHOICE HALF PRICE THIS WEEKEND ONLY AT DREAMS". Text at the foot of the front cover stated "Largest Choice", "Lowest Prices" and "Fastest Delivery"; each claim was accompanied by a red tick. Page two of the wraparound ad stated "... GRAND OPENING SALE MASSIVE NEW STORE Whatever bed you're looking for, you'll find it at the brand new Dreams Bed Superstore in Margate. There's every size & more styles and designs than anywhere else, so you're sure to find the bed of your Dreams …". Text on the back of the wraparound stated "… Largest Choice - All types & sizes Lowest Prices - Best value - guaranteed Fastest Delivery - 1000's [sic] in stock …". b. A leaflet, for Dreams, stated "Largest Choice All types and sizes available … Lowest Prices … Fastest Delivery 1000's [sic] in stock for immediate delivery …".

Issue

The Sleep Centre (SC) challenged whether:

1. the claim "MASSIVE NEW STORE Dreams Margate GRAND OPENING SALE" in ad (a) was misleading, because they believed the discounted prices that were advertised as available in that store were also offered, at the same price, on Dreams' website and at any Dreams store;

2. the claim "HUGE CHOICE HALF PRICE THIS WEEKEND ONLY AT DREAMS" in ad (a) was misleading, because they believed the half price offers were available for a month, not merely for a weekend;

3. the claims "Largest Choice", "There's every size & more styles and designs than anywhere else" in ad (a) and "Largest Choice - All types & sizes" in ads (a) and (b) were misleading and could be substantiated;

4. the claims "Lowest Prices" and "Lowest Prices - Best value - guaranteed" in ads (a) and (b) could be substantiated, because they claimed that they sold some of the beds in the ad for less than Dreams' discounted prices. They also believed the price promise was misleading because the ads did not clarify how it worked and

5. the ads were misleading, because they believed Dreams charged a compulsory £27 delivery charge that was not mentioned in the ads.

The SC and a member of the public challenged whether:

6. the claims "Fastest Delivery" in ad (a) and "Fastest Delivery 1000's [sic] in stock for immediate delivery" in ad (b) were misleading, because SC offered same day or next day delivery and the member of the public had been waiting for two months for Dreams to deliver her bed, which had still not arrived.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Dreams asserted that they had received no complaints about the ads.

1. Dreams said the discounted prices in the wraparound were available on their website and in all their stores. They believed the ad did not claim that the discounted prices were available only in the Margate store. They explained that every customer who bought a bed at the Margate store was given a free gift. They added that various one-off promotional items were also available at Margate. Those offers were not available at other branches; that was why the headline had claimed there was a "sale" at Margate. Nevertheless, they said that, in order to reduce confusion, they would remove the word "sale" so that future ads would state "MASSIVE NEW STORE DREAMS [branch name] GRAND OPENING".

2. Dreams explained that the half price offers were available throughout October. They believed the underlined text "ONLY AT DREAMS", which was on a separate line from the text "THIS WEEKEND", indicated that the offer was available only at Dreams. They believed it did not imply the offers were available only for the weekend. They suggested that, in future ads, they would put a hyphen between the words "weekend" and "only".

3. Dreams believed they offered Britain's largest choice because they carried virtually an unlimited number of lines and had over 150 branches across the UK and over one million square foot of retail selling space. They explained that other large bed retailers had an average branch square footage of between 2,300 and 5,570, whereas Dreams branches averaged in the region of 8,000. Dreams said that, in order to avoid confusion in future ads, they would not suggest that any specific store had the largest choice on display.

4. Dreams said they operated a price promise policy, whereby they promised to beat any price offered by competitors for the same product. They believed that was clarified by the text "See in-store for details" in ad (a). They said they would replace the claim "Lowest Prices - Best value guaranteed" in ad (a) with "Lowest Prices - and that's a promise" and "Dreams price promise - see in store for details" in future ads. They asserted that the complainants did not sell beds identical to those in ad (a) at lower prices than those offered by Dreams.

5. Dreams said the delivery charge was not compulsory and would be charged only if customers were unable to collect the bed from the Dreams store or Home Delivery depot. They said their terms and conditions of sale stated "Delivery is a separate and severable part of the order/contract." They explained that the £27 was not a fixed price; the charge varied depending on the level of service required by the customer.

6. Dreams explained that they had a 130,000 square foot central distribution warehouse and nine home delivery depots nationwide. They said the claim "Fastest delivery" was based on the volume and speed at which they delivered. They believed their competitors could not deliver faster. They said they could deliver on the same day or next day providing that the goods were not made to measure. They explained that the public complainant had ordered a bed online, made to a desired specification, which took longer to deliver. Dreams stated that, in future ads, they would replace "Fastest Delivery" with "Super Fast Delivery".

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that the claims "MASSIVE NEW STORE Dreams Margate GRAND OPENING SALE at Broadstairs Retail Park ... HUGE CHOICE HALF PRICE GRAND OPENING SALE MASSIVE NEW STORE ... the brand new Dreams Bed Superstore in Margate" implied the discounted offers were available only at the new Margate store. Because the discounted prices were available at all Dreams Stores and on their website, we considered that the claims were misleading. We noted that Dreams would remove the word "sale" from future ads. Nevertheless, we considered that, in the context of the ad, the claim without the word "sale" still implied that the half price promotion was specifically for the new store opening, not for all Dreams stores.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We noted Dreams confirmed that the half price offers were available throughout October. We considered that the text "HUGE CHOICE HALF PRICE THIS WEEKEND ONLY AT DREAMS" misleadingly suggested that Dreams were holding a one-off weekend half price promotion and that underlining "ONLY AT DREAMS" did not communicate that the promotion was ongoing. Although Dreams suggested that, in future ads, they would place a hyphen between "WEEKEND" and "ONLY", we considered that that would still not clarify that the promotion lasted longer than just a weekend.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 34.1 (Significant conditions for promotions).

3. Upheld

We considered that the claims implied Dreams offered a greater selection of beds than their competitors. Because Dreams had provided no evidence to substantiate the claims, we concluded that they were misleading and should not be used to refer to specific stores or to Dreams in general.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

4. Upheld

We noted the ads did not mention that Dreams would beat any price offered by their competitors for the same product. We noted the statement "See in-store for details" was not linked to the claim "Lowest Prices - Best value - guaranteed" but considered that, even if linked, the statement would not make clear how the price promise worked. We acknowledged that Dreams would replace the claim "Lowest Prices - Best value - guaranteed" with "Lowest Prices - and that's a promise" and "Dreams price promise - see in store for details", which we considered an improvement on the original claims, but noted Dreams had not provided us with any evidence to show they offered lower prices than their competitors or any instances of the price promise having been honoured. We concluded that Dreams had not substantiated the claims.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 17.1 (Guarantees) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

5. Not upheld

We acknowledged that the delivery charge would apply only if customers were unable to collect the bed themselves. We considered that, although customers were likely to require their bed to be delivered, they were also likely to expect to pay extra for the delivery of such an item. We also noted the delivery charge was variable, depending on the service required, and was not fixed at £27. We concluded that the ads were not misleading on that point.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 34.1 (Significant conditions for promotions) but did not find them in breach.

6. Upheld

We acknowledged that Dreams offered same day or next day delivery. Because SC also offered same day or next day delivery, we considered that Dreams had not substantiated the claim "Fastest Delivery". However, we considered the phrase "Super Fast Delivery" acceptable, because it was not a comparative claim and was likely to be seen as an expression of Dreams' opinion about their service.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Action

We told Dreams to make clear where discounted offers were available, to explain the details of the price promise and to state the closing date of promotions in future similar ads. We also told them not to repeat the claims "Largest Choice", "There's every size & more styles and designs than anywhere else", "Lowest Prices" and "Fastest Delivery" unless they held sufficient substantiation to support them. We advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing future similar ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)