ASA Adjudication on Sherlock Publications Ltd

Ad

A direct mailing, for HotProperty.co.uk, featured the logos of search engines, including Google,Yahoo! and msn and claimed "be seen in all the right places with HotProperty.co.uk". Text on the reverse of the mailing stated "Join HotProperty and we'll get you seen in all the right places. Like Google, Yahoo, MSN, Channel4.com, Multimap and all the other major portals ... we spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a year making sure that all of your properties are available through all the major search engines. We have pay-per-click campaigns live all month every month and have the best brains in the business working to make sure that we come out on top of the natural listings as well ... Call us today and we'll have you all over the web in less than a week".

Issue

Propertyfinder.com challenged whether:

1. the claims "we spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a year making sure that all of your properties are available through all the major search engines",

2. "We have pay-per-click campaigns live all month every month and have the best brains in the business working to make sure that we come out on top of the natural listings as well" and

3. "we'll have you all over the web in less than a week" were misleading and could be substantiated and

4. whether HotProperty.co.uk had a commercial relationship with the search portals listed in the mailing.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. HotProperty.co.uk said they employed an external agency and spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on search marketing, including pay-per-click media spend, external support and purchase of external links to ensure they ranked highly in natural search engine listings. They sent invoices from their agency in support of their claim.

2. HotProperty.co.uk said their pay-per-click advertising was set to run throughout the month and that the invoices from their agency demonstrated they ran campaigns every month. They said their agency had been voted the best search agency in 2006 by readers of several trade magazines.

3. HotProperty.co.uk explained that their software allowed them to extract client data and adapt it to a template for publication on their site within a period of between one and five days. They argued that, because they ran pay-per-click campaigns throughout each month, once data was uploaded to their site it would appear quickly on all the portals through which they advertised. They sent client contracts and timed and dated lists of requests to view property from web users to demonstrate how long it might take for clients to receive a response. They said they did not offer a guarantee to customers but would either compensate on price or find another solution if they did not meet their promise. They said they had not experienced any problems in meeting their promise to date.

4. HotProperty.co.uk said they did not intend to imply a particular commercial relationship with any of the search portals listed in the mailing, but only to give examples of the sites where properties would appear because of their pay-per-click strategy and spending on keywords. They said they also provided search functionality for several sites directly. They sent screenshots for each search engine that listed properties advertised by HotProperty.co.uk.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the invoices sent by HotProperty.co.uk. We concluded the claim was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the mailing under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the invoices showed Hotproperty.co.uk ran campaigns every month and that they employed an agency to work on their links and pay-per-click advertising. We understood that it was impossible to guarantee a constant high rating on natural listings. However, we considered that readers would not understand the claim "We ... have the best brains in the business working to make sure that we come out on top of the natural listings as well" to be a guarantee that Hotproperty.co.uk's clients would always appear at the top of natural listings but only a promise that they would take steps to ensure as high a rating as could reasonably be achieved, for example by using link building campaigns. We concluded the claim was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the mailing under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted that the evidence sent by Hotproperty.co.uk showed clients had received viewing requests within two or three days of signing a contract for publication on the website. We considered Hotproperty.co.uk had substantiated their claim and concluded the mailing was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the mailing under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

We considered readers would understand that the logos featured in the mailing were examples of sites where they could expect properties to appear as a result of Hotproperty.co.uk's service and that, although Hotproperty.co.uk had a commercial relationship with some of the featured sites, the presentation of the mailing did not imply a commercial relationship with every one of those sites. We concluded the mailing was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the mailing under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 20.2 (Denigration and unfair advantage), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)