ASA Adjudication on Savills plc

Ad

A regional press ad for Savills, an estate agent, was headed "The facts are there in red and yellow." Yellow text on the right hand side stated "Savills attracts more buyers through its website than any of our competitors** - Savills has more residential estate agency offices for sourcing buyers* - Savills residential turnover is higher than our closest competitor by 50%* - Savills overall turnover is 33% higher than our nearest competitor*." * was linked to "Source: Estates Gazette July 2007." ** was linked to "Source: www.hitwise.co.uk."

A bar chart and a graph were shown on the left hand side. The bar chart was headed "Number of Residential Estate Agency Offices for sourcing buyers - Source Estate Agency News, 2007." A red bar showed Savills in highest place with 70 offices. The rest of the graph identified competitors with between 18 and 65 offices. The graph was headed "Website Traffic Competitor Analysis - January 2007 to July 2007." Lines across the graph put Savills's score as the highest with between 30 and 38% of the market share of visits. The rest of the graph identified competitors who scored between 5 and 20% of the market share of visits. Text below the graph stated "Data source: www.hitwise.co.uk. Based on savills.co.uk's market share of visits from October 2006 to May 2007 within a custom category of 9 estate agency websites selected by Savills from the Hitwise property category."

Issue

Hamptons International (Hamptons) challenged

1. whether Savills could substantiate the claim in the text and the bar chart that they had the highest number (70) of residential estate agency offices for sourcing buyers;

2.  the validity of the figures that ran from January to July 2007 in the graph, when the text below stated that the source figures ended at May 2007 and

3.  whether the comparison of internet traffic was misleading because it omitted a competitor listed in the bar chart who was likely to have a higher share of website visits than Savills.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Savills plc (Savills) submitted evidence that showed the locations and address for every Savills branch. They explained that there were two ways to establish the number of offices that respective agencies had. The first was to go to each agency's website and count the number of individual offices shown on the website, while the second method would be to use a respected, independent source that published data from their own research.

Savills argued that the problem with the former option was that some offices listed on agents' websites did not carry out residential agency business, but might, for example, be commercial, lettings, rural or valuation offices. They said to count those offices would lead to an inaccurate figure. Savills also argued that some agencies had lists of virtual offices. They explained that that was where listed offices were simply just contact numbers and e-mail addresses used to attract enquires, but which in reality were processed by other working offices.

Savills said they had used the second option. They explained that the figures they used had been drawn from the independent Estate Agency News, which published an annual list, or 'league table', of residential agencies and the number of offices each agency has. Savills said they accepted that over time companies expanded or contracted, but they argued that, at the time the ad was placed, the number of offices shown in the bar chart was based on the best available independent data. Savills submitted a copy of that data from Estate Agency News.

2. Savills said they had taken the data used in the graph from Hitwise, which was a respected, independent organisation that measured internet usage. They explained that the figures used in the graph for the period January 2007 to July 2007 were correct, but that during the production of the ad the wrong source was quoted. Savills submitted a copy of the source data from Hitwise, which showed that the figures from January 2007 to July 2007 were accurate. They explained that the text under the graph should have stated "data source - hitwise.co.uk based on www.savills.co.uk market share of visits between January 2007 to July 2007 within a custom category of 7 estate agency websites selected by Savills from the Hitwise property category". Savills said they would ensure that future ads were correctly sourced with the appropriate wording.

3. Savills explained that, as a major national agency, they had selected agencies for comparison that were the main national agents competing in the same sector of the market as Savills nationwide. They said they had not included Foxtons, the agency referred to in the complaint, because it was a London-based agency with just two offices outside London - i.e., in Surrey. Savills argued that Foxtons did not constitute a suitable agency for inclusion in the chart of major national agencies.

Savills submitted data from Hitwise that showed the percentage market share of visits to the Savills' website, compared to six other national estate agents, as used in the ad. They also submitted the same data, but this time with Foxtons included. Savills argued that, even if Foxtons were included, the data showed that Savills still had a higher share of website visits.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the independent data from Estate Agency News, submitted by Savills in support of the claim. We considered that that data showed that, of the ten agencies featured in the bar chart, Savills had the highest number of residential estate agency offices, with a total of 73, and that Hamptons was the next highest with a total of 65 residential offices. We therefore concluded that on this point the ad was not misleading.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted that the documentation submitted by Savills confirmed that the figures used in the ad's graph were accurate, and that those figures were for the period January 2007 to July 2007. We acknowledged that the footnoted text used in the ad, which inaccurately related those figures to the period October 2006 to May 2007, had been placed in error, and we welcomed Savills' assurance that they would make sure that similar ads were correctly referenced in future. We considered that, although the footnoted text was inaccurate, the figures and headline dates used in the ad were valid and had been compiled by an objective, independent source. We considered that, on that basis, customers were unlikely to be misled by the graph, and we therefore concluded that on this point the ad was not misleading.   

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

3. Upheld

We noted Savills' argument that they had selected for comparison the main national agencies that competed in the same sector of the market as they did, and that, with only two offices outside of London, Foxtons was not suitable for inclusion in the graph.  We recognised that the evidence provided by Savills from Hitwise demonstrated that, even when Foxtons were included in the count, Savills still had the largest market share of website visits. However, we considered that it was unclear from the ad why Foxtons had been included in the bar chart comparison of residential estate agency offices, when they were not in Savills' view a national agency, but excluded from the website traffic competitor analysis chart. We considered that that discrepancy could confuse customers by suggesting that the information provided across both charts was incomplete or selective. Because there was no clear reason why some of the agencies featured in the bar chart were not also featured in the website traffic chart, and because customers could not make a full comparison between the agencies and data featured within those charts, we concluded that the ad was misleading by omission.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

Action

We told Savills to make sure that the agencies and information presented in both graphs were the same in future ads, and that any differences were clearly explained.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)