ASA Adjudication on JJB Sports plc

Ad

Three leaflets, for JJB fitness clubs, compared the cost of gym membership with other named gyms in local areas:

a. The first leaflet, distributed in Newport, showed a notepad which stated, in handwritten text, "NEW YEAR Gym price comparison. Bannatynes £42. Fitness First £24.95, no pool. Living Well £42. My membership at JJB from only £27 per month. JJB Fitness Clubs"

b. The second leaflet, distributed in Morecambe, showed a notepad which stated, in handwritten text, "NEW YEAR Gym price comparison. VVV £45. Total Fitness £44. Spirit £38. My membership at JJB from only £26 per month. JJB Fitness Clubs"

c. The third leaflet, distributed in Barrow, showed a notepad which stated, in handwritten text, "NEW YEAR Gym price comparison. Cannons £42. DS Fitness £38. Park Leisure £26.95, no pool! My membership at JJB from only £26 per month. JJB Fitness Clubs"

Issue

1. Bannatyne Fitness Ltd objected that ad (a) was misleading, because it compared the off-peak membership fee for the advertiser's gym with their peak hours' fee.

2. VVV Health and Leisure Club objected that ad (b) was misleading, because it compared the advertiser's lowest monthly fee with one of their higher fees. They said they also offered memberships at £25 per month.

3. Barrow Borough Council objected that ad (c) was misleading, because the price quoted for membership of the Park Leisure Centre was incorrect, and was also misleading because it stated that the Park Leisure Centre had no pool when in fact it had two.

4. Nuffield Health and Fitness and Well Being (formerly Cannons) objected that ad (c) was misleading because it compared the advertiser's off-peak membership with their peak hours' fee.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1., 2., 3. & 4.

JJB Sports plc (JJB) said, although the price comparison on the front of the leaflet was not a "like for like" one, they believed the further information on the reverse made clear the basis for the comparison.  They said the actual prices were collated by their clubs and believed that information was correct at the time the ads were distributed. They said the reference to the Park Leisure Centre in Barrow having no pool was an error, for which they apologised. JJB maintained that, with that exception, the leaflets were unlikely to mislead readers when read as a whole. They explained that they had tried to resolve the complaints at a local level, and had removed the material once they were aware of the complaints.

Assessment

1., 2., 3. & 4.  Upheld

The ASA noted the pricing information on the front of each leaflet merely quoted monthly prices.  Although we acknowledged that the information on the reverse of the leaflet made clear that JJB Sport were quoting their off-peak membership prices, we considered that the overall presentation of the leaflets nevertheless did not make it sufficiently clear that they were comparing their off peak prices with their competitors' peak membership prices. We considered that, in the context of ads that focused on price, the comparison was neither clear nor fair and concluded that readers were likely to be misled by the leaflets into believing JJB gym membership was much cheaper than its competitors' membership on similar terms.

The ads breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparative claims).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told JJB to ensure future price comparisons were both clear and fair and advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for help with that.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)