ASA Adjudication on Jessops plc

Ad

A national press ad, a leaflet and a magazine ad for cameras and camera accessories.

a. The national press ad stated “DO YOU THINK YOU COULD BEAT JESSOPS [sic] LOW PRICES? NO NOT WITH JESSOPS NEW PRICE GUARANTEE … INTERNET BEATING PRICES ON OUR PRODUCTS WITH OUR PRICE GUARANTEE We aim to be unbeatable, but if you see any product we sell at an online or UK high street competitor, we will give you 110% of the difference if you buy it from us”. Small print stated “This offer is available on any like for like product that is an official UK import, currently in stock at both Jessops and a UK competitor, and can be verified by a UK phone number. This offer is not redeemable with any other offer. Online price comparisons will be made including P&P costs. Used Equipment, clearance, developing and printing services, ex-display or closing down prices are excluded. Offer only available in-store (excludes Jersey and Guernsey)".

b. The leaflet stated “INTERNET BEATING PRICES ON OUR PRODUCTS WITH OUR PRICE GUARANTEE We aim to be unbeatable, but if you see any product we sell at an online or UK high street competitor, we will give you 110% of the difference if you buy it from us”. The small print was the same as in the national press ad.

c. The magazine ad stated “DID YOU KNOW CHRISTMAS HAS STARTED AT JESSOPS? … We aim to be unbeatable, but if you see any camera, camcorder or printer we sell online or at a UK high street competitor, we will give you 110% of the difference if you buy it from us”. The small print was the same as in the national press ad.

Issue

The complainants, who found cheaper products which they believed fulfilled the requirements of the price guarantee, objected that the ad was misleading, because Jessops had refused to honour the guarantee.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Jessops said they had ceased to offer the Internet Beating Prices guarantee. They said it was a promotion but it had not featured an end date. They said other retailers did not include end dates for their long-term offers and it was standard industry practice.

They said they had decided to phase out the offer from 24 November 2006. They said they had not intended ads which featured the offer to appear after the end of November but some copy deadlines meant that ads had appeared in the January editions of specialist magazines, which were on sale during December.

Jessops said they had instructed area managers at a meeting on 8 December to stop the offer and had requested that that information was communicated verbally to all store managers shortly afterwards. They said they had also informed area managers at that meeting that customers who referred to the ad in the specialist press would still be entitled to the offer, provided they referred to the correct ad and issue date. They apologised if that had not been offered in every case. They said, although they did not send out a written memo on the issue, there was evidence of continued discounting at store level for customers who had taken up the offer.

Jessops said they had made every attempt to ensure the offer was withdrawn in December 2006 and had also made every attempt to ensure that they honoured "Internet Beating Prices" if there was any confusion.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the offer had not featured an end date and Jessops had taken the decision to phase out the offer at the end of November. We noted they had not placed new ads but that several ads featuring the price promise had continued to appear. Although we noted Jessops' statement that they had passed on the message to stores to continue to honour the offer for customers who referred to an ad that was still in print, we also noted several of the complainants, who had seen ads which had appeared in a January edition of some magazines, had been told that the offer had finished on 15 December.

Because some ads featuring the price promise had continued to appear after the offer had finished, and because Jessops had been unable to provide evidence that they had continued to honour the offer for customers who referred to those ads, we considered that the ads were misleading.

The ads breached CAP Code Clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 17.1 (Guarantees).

Action

We told Jessops to ensure they honoured their price promises in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)