ASA Adjudication on MFI Retail Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, a national press ad and a leaflet for MFI. a. The TV ad stated in voiceover "Get up to 50% off and a free Bosch dishwasher in the MFI sale. Hurry. Offer ends 8pm January 2nd". On-screen text stated "sale save up to 50% Ends 8pm January 2nd". Smaller text at the bottom of the screen continued "Selected ranges. Minimum spend levels apply." b. The national press ad was headlined "mfi SALE SAVE UP TO 50% ON THOUSANDS OF LINES HYGENA RIMINI KITCHEN WAS £687 NOW £537 SAVE £150 ONLY 20 PER STORE! Free Bosch Dishwasher worth £499 when you spend £1500*". The asterisk was linked to small print that stated "Free Bosch Dishwasher (ABH8880) offer on selected kitchen ranges only. Minimum spend levels apply". c. The leaflet stated "sale save up to 50% mfi price promise BRITAIN'S LOWEST PRICES! If you find a comparable quote at a current lower price or get a lower quote, we'll match that price and give you an EXTRA 10% off the difference too! ... mfi value EVERY DAY UNBEATABLE PRICES." The leaflet also included an ad for a bed. Text stated "COSMOS DIVAN ... Cosmos Double Non-Storage Divan excludes headboard ONLY £249". The ad featured a picture of a double bed which included built-in storage drawers. Small print at the bottom of the middle pages of the leaflet stated “PRICE INFORMATION … Prices are for self-assembly units … Excludes installation, warranties and delivery.”

Issue

B&Q challenged whether the TV ad was misleading:

1. because it failed to make clear that a minimum spend of £1500 applied in order to qualify for the free dishwasher.

They also challenged whether the national press ad was misleading:

2. because they did not believe MFI stocked "THOUSANDS OF LINES";

3. because they did not believe the Hygena Rimini Kitchen had been sold at the higher price of £687;

4. because it failed to make clear the closing date of the promotion.   

They further challenged whether the leaflet was misleading:

5. in particular the claim "BRITAIN'S LOWEST PRICES!", because

a) MFI could only offer the lowest prices if they used their price promise,

b) they did not believe that MFI could offer the lowest prices against their competitors for all products even using their price promise, and

c) they believed most of the products sold by MFI were exclusive to them and therefore should not form the basis of a lowest prices claim;

6. in particular the claim "EVERYDAY UNBEATABLE PRICES" which they believed implied MFI's non-sale items were cheaper than their competitors;

7. because it failed to make clear the closing date of the promotion;

8. because it did not make clear the significant exclusions that applied to the price promise, which included online quotes, installation and warranties, and

9. in particular the ad for the Cosmos Divan, because the price did not relate to the featured bed.  

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. MFI said they included as much information as was practical for a TV ad and believed the ad made clear that a minimum spend applied.

Clearcast agreed that the ad made clear that a minimum spend applied and ensured that the corresponding on-screen text appeared for the duration of the ad.  They did not insist that the qualifying spend was included because MFI often had more than one offer running at once.

2. MFI explained that they sold 33 kitchen lines, 28 of which were included in the promotion at a reduced cost.  In relation to its kitchen product offer, they said they stocked over 2,500 different product items, of which 2,226 were subject to reductions of up to 50%.  They therefore disagreed that the ad was misleading.

3. MFI said the Hygiena kitchen units were available at the higher price of £687 from the beginning of November 2007 until 21 December 2007.  During that period, they sold £144,000 worth of Hygiena kitchens.  

4. & 7. MFI conceded that the closing date for the promotion should have been included.

5. MFI said they understood that the CAP Code only required evidence for a claim if it was capable of objective substantiation.  They believed it was virtually impossible to check every kitchen unit outlet across the country to substantiate the claim "BRITAINS LOWEST PRICES", but nevertheless carried out competitor monitoring and were confident that the claim was accurate.  They told the ASA that, at the time the leaflet appeared, one of B&Qs comparable ranges was selling for £43 more than the equivalent MFI range and another was selling for £5 more.

MFI believed their prices were generally the lowest available across the country but did not submit documentary evidence of that.  They said invoking their price promise, which applied to full price and sale price items alike, was an extra guarantee to consumers that, in the event they found a cheaper price elsewhere, MFI would beat it.

In response to B&Qs point that MFIs exclusive products should not form the basis of a "lowest prices" claim, MFI said even where a product was exclusive to them, comparable items could be found at other stores.  MFI considered that they should not be prevented from making a "lowest price" type claim because a limited number of their ranges were exclusive to them.

6. MFI said the word 'unbeatable' was subjective and believed their prices were generally very competitive, even in the absence of promotions.  They repeated that they routinely checked competitor prices every two weeks and maintained a database of competitor prices.

8. MFI believed the prices stated clearly related to the price of the furniture and believed customers would understand that extras such as installation and extended warranty were not included in the price of units and appliances.  MFI pointed out that some customers chose to install their own units and appliances or appointed MFI's installers or an independent third party.  They said it would not therefore be possible to give an all inclusive price that would apply to all customers.

9. MFI said text below the photograph of the bed made clear it was a "non-storage bed" but accepted that, by showing a photograph of a divan bed with a storage drawer open, the ad could mislead and apologised for the error.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA noted MFI's argument that they had included as much information as was practical for a TV ad.  We also noted Clearcast's comments that it was sufficient to include a reference to the minimum spend only and it was not necessary to specify the level of minimum spend because MFI often had more than one promotion running at any one time, and different levels of minimum spend could apply.  

We noted the ad stated "Get up to 50% off and a free Bosch dishwasher in the MFI sale."  We understood from B&Q that, in order to obtain the free Bosch dishwasher, a minimum spend of £1,500 applied.  We considered that the ad drew consumers' attention specifically to the free dishwasher promotion, not to their promotions in general.  While we accepted that the ad indicated that a minimum spend applied, we nevertheless considered that, particularly because £1,500 was a significant sum, the level of minimum spend should have been included in the ad.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 5.2.3 (Qualifications) but did not breach 5.1 (Misleading advertising) or 5.2.1 (Evidence).

2.  Upheld

The ASA noted MFI sold 33 kitchen lines, of which 28 lines were included in the promotion.  We further noted they stocked over 2,500 kitchen products, of which over 2,000 were included in the promotion.  While we did not dispute that thousands of products were included in the promotion, we noted that the claim related to savings of up to 50% on "thousands of lines".  We considered that consumers would understand a "line" to refer to a particular range of products, for example, bathrooms, bedrooms or kitchens.  Because the claim stated that savings of up to 50% could be made on thousands of lines when only 28 lines were included in the promotion, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead and disappoint consumers.

On this point, the national press ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 27.4 (Sales promotion rules).

3.  Upheld

The ASA noted MFI's assertions that the product had been sold at the higher price of £687 during November and December 2007.  However, we were concerned that MFI had not sent documentary evidence, such as customer invoices, to show that the kitchen had been sold at £687 in the period immediately before and immediately after the January sale.  Because MFI had not submitted evidence to support their claim, we concluded that it was unsubstantiated and could mislead.

On this point, the ad national press ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

4. & 7.  Upheld

The ASA welcomed MFI's acceptance that the ads should have contained a closing date.  We noted the CAP Code stipulated that promotions should specify clearly before any purchase a prominent closing date.  Because the ads had failed to include that information, we concluded that they could mislead.

On this point, the national press ad and the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 34.1 (c) (Significant conditions).

5. Upheld

We noted the CAP Help Note on Lowest Price Claims and Price Promises stated that lowest price claims must be backed up by suitable evidence to show that marketers will always beat competitors' prices.   It also stated that offering a price promise, for example, to beat a competitor's price if informed of that price by a consumer, did not justify a lowest price claim in the absence of an adequate monitoring and adjustment policy, and that held true even if the lowest price claim was immediately qualified to refer to the price promise.  It further stated that lowest price claims should apply only to products that were not exclusive to the marketer.

We noted that the CAP Help Note on Retailers Price Comparisons stated that marketers should, as far as is reasonably possible, compare products of the same, or very similar, quality for example own-brand with own-brand.

We noted B&Q believed they, and other retailers, offered equivalent goods for lower prices than MFI and therefore believed the claim "BRITAIN'S LOWEST PRICES" was misleading.

We noted B&Q believed most products sold by MFI were exclusive to them and therefore MFI should not be allowed to make the claim "BRITAIN'S LOWEST PRICES".  We considered that marketers could make valid price comparisons between their own-brand and the own-brand products of their competitors despite the fact that their own-brand products would be exclusive to them.  However, we considered that marketers should not imply that they offered the lowest prices available for specific products which were not available elsewhere, for example by claiming "The lowest price on kitchen X" where they were the only retailer who sold kitchen X.  We noted MFI had not done that.

We noted MFI believed they offered "BRITAINS LOWEST PRICES" for products that were both generally available in Britain and also for products that were exclusive to them but comparable to ranges found elsewhere.

We noted the headline claim "BRITAIN'S LOWEST PRICES" was immediately qualified with the text "If you find a comparable quote at a current lower price or get a lower quote, we'll match that price and give you an EXTRA 10% off the difference too!"   We considered readers would interpret this to mean that MFI offered both the lowest prices on kitchen ranges, bedroom ranges etc generally available in Britain and also the lowest prices for products that were exclusive to MFI but comparable to ranges found elsewhere.  The text also alerted readers to the fact that MFI offered a price promise in the event that readers found a product cheaper elsewhere.

While we noted MFI's assertions that their monitoring showed they offered the lowest prices both generally and on products that were exclusive to them but comparable elsewhere, they did not submit documentary evidence to support that.  In the absence of evidence to show that an adequate price monitoring and adjustment policy had been carried out, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

6.  Upheld

We noted the claim "EVERYDAY UNBEATABLE PRICES" appeared in the context of a leaflet that advertised MFIs up to 50% [off] sale.  We also noted, however, the leaflet featured the claims "BRITAINS LOWEST PRICES", "MFI value" and described MFIs price promise.  We considered that readers would understand those claims to refer to MFIs prices in general, and not just to their sale or promotional prices.  We therefore considered that they were likely to view the claim "EVERYDAY UNBEATABLE PRICES" in the same way.  We considered that the claim "EVERYDAY UNBEATABLE PRICES" on its own implied MFI would not be beaten on price but did not imply MFI offered the lowest prices.  However, in conjunction with the other claims, we considered that the overall impression given by the leaflet was that MFI would always beat their competitors' prices.

We noted MFI believed they were cheaper than their competitors and they routinely monitored prices to ensure that that remained the case.  However, they did not send documentary evidence to support that and we concluded that the claim could mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

8.  Upheld

The ASA acknowledged MFI's argument that consumers would not necessarily expect a price promise to include online quotes, installation and extended warranties.  We accepted that consumers would generally consider installation and extended warranties to be additional to any stated price.  We also noted small print in the middle pages of the leaflet stated ...Excludes installation, warranties and delivery."  However, the leaflet did not make clear that the price promise would not apply to online quotes.  We considered that was a significant exclusion which should have been made clear in the leaflet and without it, we concluded that the leaflet could mislead.

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

9.  Upheld

The ASA welcomed MFI's admission of error.  We noted that the price for the Cosmos Divan did not relate to the product pictured and, although accompanying text made clear that the Cosmos Divan was a "non-storage bed", we considered that there was a contradiction between the photograph of the product and the accompanying text which could confuse readers.  We concluded that the ad was ambiguous and could mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 15.1 (Prices).

Action

The TV ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.  The national press ad and leaflet must not appear again in their current form.  We advised MFI to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for guidance with the presentation and wording of future similar non-broadcast marketing material.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)