ASA Adjudication on Michael Hardy Estate Agents

Ad

A local press ad, for an estate agent, was headlined "One simple message … more SOLD signs than any other agent* Wokingham Michael Hardy BASED ON A SURVEY COLLECTED ON 25-30 OCTOBER 2007''. A pie chart showed the relative sold board shares of the different agents in the area with Michael Hardy listed as having the highest with 24.6%. The disclaimer stated "For Sale Sign Analysis confirms that this advert is a fair and accurate representation of the information found between the dates shown. The quantity of For Sale and Sold signs does not necessarily equate to the number of completions."

Issue

Imperial Estate Agents challenged whether the reference to Wokingham was misleading because they believed the survey covered the district in which Michael Hardy Estate Agents operated, rather than the whole of Wokingham.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Michael Hardy Estate Agents (Michael Hardy) said they had not altered the boundaries of the survey to enhance their board presence.  They said they had used For Sale Sign Analysis (FSA) for several years and had always used clearly defined boundaries, which both they and FSA believed to be a fair and truthful reflection of what a reasonable person would believe to be Wokingham.  Michael Hardy pointed out that, on several occasions, the survey found that they did not have as strong a board presence as their competitors.

FSA said they did not agree with the complainant that part of Wokingham had been omitted.  They maintained that the complainant's assertion, that the area covered in the ad was only the part of Wokingham in which Michael Hardy operated, was also incorrect.  FSA pointed out that Michael Hardy operated over a wider area from their Wokingham office than that covered by the FSA.  They sent several maps along with a copy of the full Market Share Report to support their comments.

FSA explained that they offered two types of report.  One was a market share report which was for an estate agent's internal use only. They said, in general, the areas for a Market Share Report were set by individual estate agents.

FSA said the position was different with regard to the advertising material they supplied, because it was designed for use in the public domain. They said they would only provide material for an advertising claim if they were satisfied that the resulting claim would reflect accurately the area covered by the form of words used to describe that area.

FSA said it was quite common that two or more estate agents received Market Share Reports based on two different boundaries for the same town.  They maintained that, in those circumstances, they decided which, if any, accorded with a reasonable person's definition. FSA said they only offered advertising material when they were satisfied with the definition.  FSA stressed that it was not their practice to sell two advertisements based on two different definitions of the same town, even if both could be considered reasonable.

FSA said they had three boundaries for Wokingham, one set by Michael Hardy, one set by the complainants and one set by another estate agent. They pointed out that two of those definitions were the same and the complainants' definition different.  FSA said the complainant's definition of Wokingham included Binfield and excluded Winnersh whereas Michael Hardy's definition excluded Binfield and included Winnersh.

FSA pointed out that the Royal Mail Postcode Allocation File for Binfield postal addresses had Bracknell as the 'Town'. They therefore believed it could not be argued that Binfield should be included within the area that a reasonable person would describe as Wokingham. Conversely, they pointed out that the Royal Mail Postcode Allocation File for Winnersh postal addresses had Wokingham as the 'Town'. FSA said Winnersh had been included within the boundary used for the Wokingham advertising material, and therefore was strictly outside the scope of the complaint that the 'survey' did not cover the whole of Wokingham.  Finally, FSA pointed out that, if Winnersh were excluded from the area used for the Wokingham advertising material, Michael Hardy's market share would actually become higher.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the maps of Wokingham, sent by FSA, illustrated the differences between Michael Hardy's definition of Wokingham and that of the complainant.  We understood neither approach was based wholly on an objective or recognised definition. We noted the existence of various administrative, electoral and postal definitions for any given area. However, although we considered that they demarcated objectively the boundaries of particular towns or areas, we considered that such an approach might not be appropriate in all instances.

We noted FSA used a test of what a reasonable person would expect of a given area in conjunction with more objective measures such as postal codes. We considered that the discretion afforded by such an approach allowed FSA to gauge whether a given set of boundaries put to them was acceptable. We understood that FSA adopted a consistent approach in defining a particular market, for the purposes of the advertising they sold and did not change the definition of a particular area when the agent with the highest board count changed.

We considered that readers were likely to have a different view on exactly what constituted a particular area, such as Wokingham. We considered however that the area covered by the FSA survey could reasonably be described as 'Wokingham'.  Moreover, we noted the survey did not cover the full area of Michael Hardy's operations and included the village of Winnersh, which actually depreciated Michael Hardy's position in terms of board count.

Because the area covered by the survey could reasonably be described as Wokingham and because FSA had shown that it did not favour Michael Hardy, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other Comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)