ASA Adjudication on Thomas Cook Retail Ltd

Ad

A press ad and a radio ad for a foreign exchange service.

a. The press ad stated "We won't be beaten by the Post Office on foreign exchange rates" next to a table comparing the exchange rates for 500 US dollars at Thomas Cook, the Post Office and four other currency exchange providers. Small text at the bottom of the table stated "Based on published national rates correct as of 1pm, 14-07-09. Compare our rates in store today". Further text underneath the table stated "Over 800 stores nationwide or www.thomascook.com". Footnoted text at the bottom of the ad stated "Offer applies at Thomas Cook & Going Places high street travel stores only and to rates at Post Office, M&S and Bank high street outlets. All offers apply to new transactions on a like-for-like basis on the same day".

b. The radio ad stated "The only reason I'm even talking to you right now is because the Post Office have been going on and on about their deals on foreign currency. The thing is, Thomas Cook have got 0% commission on over 80 currencies and they won't be beaten by the Post Office on foreign exchange rates. So if it's a choice between Thomas Cook, Post Office, I go Thomas Cook. Just go, go now ... Applies to rates at high street outlets, and new transactions on the same sterling value on the same day".

Issue

The Post Office Ltd challenged whether:

1. ad (a) was misleading because the exchange rate shown did not accurately reflect their in-store rate at the time and date referred to in the ad;

2. the reference to Thomas Cook's website in the body copy of ad (a) misleadingly implied that all the rates referred to in the ad were the same online as in store, when that was not the case, and

3. ads (a) and (b), which did not make clear that Thomas Cook offered a price matching policy, misleadingly implied that Thomas Cook's published rates would always be the same or better than those offered by the Post Office.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP Radio Code

Response

1. Thomas Cook Retail Ltd (Thomas Cook) said the exchange rate of 1.5071 for 500 US Dollars (USD) shown in the price comparison table was the standard national high street rate provided by the Post Office when they contacted them on 14 July 2009.

Thomas Cook explained that, in order to obtain rates from competitors for use in their ads, they undertook daily monitoring of their competitors' national rates at their head office, and that local Thomas Cook branches also undertook their own local monitoring. This was because a small number of Post Office branches did not always use their standard national rate for certain amounts of USD or Euros. Thomas Cook said they set their rate to beat that used by any Post Office outlet. On 14 July the non-standard rate used by some Post Office branches was 1.5583 for 500 USD, which was still less than Thomas Cook's advertised rate. Thomas Cook said they did not include the non-standard Post Office rate in the comparison table because they believed it was available in 2.5% of Post Office high street outlets only.

2. Thomas Cook pointed out that the headline claim was linked by asterisk to footnoted text that stated "*Offer applies at Thomas Cook & Going Places high street stores only, and to rates at Post Office, M&S and Bank high street outlets". They believed it was therefore clear that the comparison being made related to high street stores only. Thomas Cook argued that the statement "Over 800 stores nationwide or www.thomascook.com" was clearly separated from the comparison table, and would be understood by consumers to be information about how they could access their services, rather than implying that the rates in the comparison table were available online.  

3. Thomas Cook argued that the claim in ad (a), "We won't be beaten by the Post Office on foreign exchange rates", was clearly a price match message, and they believed it conformed with CAP guidance on communicating price matches. In addition, they pointed out that the footnoted text "All offers apply to new transactions on a like-for-like basis on the same day" clarified the claim. Thomas Cook pointed out that ad (b) made no reference to published rates, but stated that they would not be beaten by the Post Office on foreign exchange rates. They said that was clearly a price match message, which drew customers' attention to the fact that Thomas Cook would price match against Post Office high street rates. They did not believe that the ad implied that their published rates would always be the same or better than those offered by the Post Office, and were confident that the comparisons made in the ads were accurate and fair.

Thomas Cook explained that they set their daily exchange rates by reference to the day's bank spot rates, as well as those rates being offered by their competitors, to ensure that their own rates were set at a competitive level. For the purposes of their rate comparison ads, they undertook daily monitoring of specific currency rates and amounts offered by competitors', and set their own rate to be better on that day. They explained that their rate comparison ads focused on one particular currency in each instance, and sent documentation showing the monitoring carried out for their comparative ads between July 2009 and October 2009.

The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) said Thomas Cook had confirmed that if a customer found a better exchange rate at a high street bank or Post Office outlet on the same day, they would match it. The RACC said they cleared the script on the condition that the price match was published and made available at the point of sale, and they pointed out that the qualifications that applied to the price match were made clear in the voice-over statement "Applies to rates at high street outlets and new transactions for the same sterling value on the same day". They said the ad therefore qualified for listeners the nature of the price match promise.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that Thomas Cook had contacted the Post Office to verify their exchange rate on 14 July, and that they had only quoted the Post Office's in-store standard rate in the ad. We considered that, because the Post Office's non-standard rate applied to a small minority of their outlets, it was reasonable of Thomas Cook to quote their in-store standard rate only. However, we understood that the Post Office in-store standard rate of 1.5071 quoted in the ad applied to purchases up to £249, which was below the amount required to purchase 500 USD on that day. We also understood that the Post Office in-store standard rate on 14 July for purchases between £250 and £499, which would buy 500 USD, was 1.5274. Although we acknowledged that the advertised exchange rate offered by Thomas Cook was still greater than the standard rate offered by the Post Office, we considered that Thomas Cook should have ensured that the rates quoted in their ad accurately reflected the exchange rates offered by their competitors for the specific amount referred to. Because the rate quoted for the Post Office was not accurate we concluded that on this point ad (a) was misleading.

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

2. Not upheld

We noted that text at the bottom of the comparison table stated "Compare our rates in-store today", and that footnoted text stated that the offer applied to Thomas Cook and Going Places stores only and the high street outlets of the named competitors. We therefore considered that consumers were likely to understand that the exchange rates quoted in the ad were those that were offered in-store by the named providers. We noted that the reference to Thomas Cook's website appeared near the bottom of the ad and was separate from the comparison table, and we considered that it was clear from that context that the website was stated as a means to access Thomas Cook's services. We did not consider that consumers would assume from that reference to the website alone that all the advertised exchange rates referred to in the comparison table applied on all the named competitors' respective websites. We therefore concluded that on this point ad (a) was not misleading.

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

3. Upheld

We considered that it was not clear from the claims "We won't be beaten by the Post Office on foreign exchange rates" in ad (a) and "Thomas Cook ... won't be beaten by the Post Office on foreign exchange rates" in ad (b) that Thomas Cook were offering a price match policy. Rather, we considered that consumers were likely to understand those claims to mean that Thomas Cook maintained a price monitoring policy to ensure that their published foreign exchange rates for all currencies would always be the same or better than those offered by the Post Office. We noted that Thomas Cook carried out monitoring to ensure their published exchange rates were competitive and that their advertised rates would be better than their competitors' for a specified amount of a particular currency on a particular day. However, because we understood that all of their foreign exchange rates would not always be the same or better than those offered by the Post Office, we concluded that on this point the ads were misleading.

On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness), 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

On this point ad (b) breached CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards rule 2 sections 3.1 (Misleadingness) and 6.1 (Fair comparisons).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)