ASA Adjudication on Gocompare.com Ltd

Ad

Three ads for Gocompare.com, a price comparison site:

a. The first, a Google sponsored link which appeared in September, stated "Cheap Car Insurance" in the hyperlink, while further text stated "We compare more than anyone else. Compare 1000+ car insurance quotes".

b. The second, also a Google sponsored link which appeared in September, again stated "Cheap Car Insurance" in the hyperlink. Further text stated "We compare more than anyone else. Save over £200 on average".

c. The third, a TV ad broadcast in November, showed a man walking towards the camera. He said "When your car insurance is due you want to check that you're not paying too much. Don't you?" A woman speaking from a computer monitor added "And how many prices do you check? Two companies? Three? Four?" The man, who joined the woman in the computer monitor, said "When you visit Gocompare.com, you can compare the prices from more car insurance companies than any other comparison website". As he said this, various company logos for car insurance companies appeared on screen. The woman continued, "Tell them what you want to include and the five star rating system will help you choose the policy that's right for you." Finally, the man said "So, if you're looking to save money on your car insurance, go compare, at Gocompare.com." The ad ended with the Gocompare.com logo as a female voice-over said "Why Gocompare anywhere else?"

Issue

Moneysupermarket.com Group plc challenged whether the ads were misleading, because they believed they compared quotes from more car insurance providers than GoCompare.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

Response

Gocompare said they reviewed their marketing claims at least once every three months to ensure they were still capable of substantiation. They asserted that they compared more car insurance companies than Moneysupermarket and all their other competitors between June and November 2008.

They sent the ASA a daily breakdown of their own car insurance provider counts from 1 June to 30 November 2008. They did not hold daily figures for the number of car insurance providers compared by Moneysupermarket; they checked Moneysupermarket's website once a month, on a random day each month, and provided those figures. They believed a monthly checking frequency for their closest competitor was more than reasonable. They were unable to comment on Moneysupermarket's assertion that on specific dates in September 2008, Gocompare were comparing fewer car insurance companies than Moneysupermarket.

Gocompare pointed out that a previous ASA investigation had established that Gocompare had compared a higher number of companies than Moneysupermarket in June and July 2008. They provided screen shots of moneysavingexpert's website on 27 August and 19 November 2008 showing Gocompare compared more car insurance companies than Moneysupermarket and one other competitor. They also submitted a Moneysupermarket press release dated 19 September 2008 which stated that Moneysupermarket compared 70 car insurance providers whereas, at that time, Gocompare compared 81.

Gocompare explained that they commissioned independent market research in October 2008: 20 individuals from four demographic groups (young single males aged 18-24; young single females aged 18-24; young families aged 25-44 and older families aged 45-54) each ran five quotes with Gocompare and four of their competitors. Car specification and cover details were consistent for each demographic group. The results showed that, out of 100 quotes, Gocompare compared the most car insurance companies for each demographic group. Moneysupermarket.com was a close second; the competitor in third place was some way behind.

Clearcast believed the October 2008 market research substantiated the claim "When you visit Gocompare.com, you can compare the prices from more car insurance companies than any other comparison website" in the TV ad.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that the market for price comparison sites was relatively dynamic and the number of car insurance providers each site compared could change frequently over the course of a month. We considered that, to show they compared more car insurance companies than any of their competitors, as the ads implied, Gocompare needed to demonstrate that they provided a higher number of quotes each month on average for a sustained period of time.

We understood from the previous investigation, the October 2008 market research and other information sent by both Gocompare and Moneysupermarket that the other competitors generally compared fewer providers than Gocompare and Moneysupermarket, and that Gocompare compared more car insurance providers than Moneysupermarket and their other competitors in June and July 2008; we noted Moneysupermarket did not dispute this.

We noted Gocompare's own 'per day' figures, against monthly snapshot figures for Moneysupermarket, indicated that Gocompare compared quotes from more car insurance providers than Moneysupermarket between June and November 2008. However, Moneysupermarket submitted a monthly breakdown of their own car insurance provider counts against Gocompare's, which did not corroborate those figures but instead indicated that Moneysupermarket compared quotes from more car insurance providers than Gocompare between August and November 2008. We were therefore unable to tell whether Gocompare or Moneysupermarket had compared the most providers from August to November 2008.

We noted the evidence in the form of screen shots from moneysavingexpert's website related to only two dates, one in August and one in November 2008, and it could not be assumed from those that Gocompare compared the most quotes on average during those months as a whole. Furthermore, Gocompare's October 2008 market research could not be reconciled with Moneysupermarket's own figures for October.

Although we considered that Gocompare's claims would have been substantiated if they had been able to show they had compared more providers than their competitors in every month on average from June to November 2008, we were unable to determine whether that was the case. Although they had compared the most quotes in June and July 2008, we considered two months were insufficient to substantiate the claims. We concluded that the claims were likely to mislead.

Ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Ad (c) breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules pre 21 November 2008 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising).

Action

The ads must not be shown again in their current form. We told Gocompare that, if they intended to make similar claims in the future, they should ensure they held more robust data for their closest competitor(s), for example, daily comparative figures against their closest competitors figures with dated screen shots to support them. If for any reason it was not possible to compile and record the appropriate data, the claim should not be made at all.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)