ASA Adjudication on Jolliman Trading Ltd

Ad

A national press ad for men's shirts was headlined "The Famous Tattersall Shirts". Text below this stated "BUY 3 AT £10 EACH SAVE £6. A long time Jolliman favourite, you won't find better value no matter how far you search! We have limited stock so ORDER NOW to avoid disappointment!" The ad featured a close-up picture of three folded shirts with the Jolliman label sewn into the collar. Text beneath this stated "'Check out' our Tattersalls, generously cut for uncompromising comfort across the shoulders, chest and under the arms whilst the 100% woven brushed cotton fabric allows these shirts to stand the closest examination and go with any outfit. * Quality and value second to none * Generously cut with full length back * Smart and casual, perfect with or without a tie * Two breast pockets * Machine washable".

Issue

The complainant, who had ordered the shirts featured in the ad but received a different make and style of shirt instead, challenged:

1. the availability of the advertised Tattersall shirts; and

2. whether the substitute shirt was of equal quality and value to the advertised shirt.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Jolliman Trading Ltd (Jolliman) said they estimated that the ad would generate demand for 300 units of Tattersall shirts, based on empirical data. They said the shirts were a popular product line and had also been advertised in their catalogue and they therefore had stock of 1350 units with a further 3600 units on purchase order with their supplier. They supplied stock inventories to support this. Jolliman said the press ad had generated actual sales of 406 units, and provided copies of their sales data.

Jolliman said when the complainant placed the order, their main supplier had already run out of stock and that, as a result, the complainant received an alternative product. They said the complainant had since returned their order and received a full refund, which also covered the cost of returning the goods.

Jolliman said it was their policy to provide substitute products when stock of an advertised item had been exhausted and pointed out that this was common practice across the clothing mail order industry. They said their catalogue and website included statements about this policy but acknowledged that their ads had not previously done so. They said this had now been rectified.

2. Jolliman provided one of the advertised Jolliman shirts and one of the alternative Champion shirts. They argued that the quality of the shirts was comparable, and also provided invoices from the suppliers of each of the shirts, which they said showed that the cost prices of both shirts were the same to within a few pence.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that Jolliman claimed to have estimated the likely demand for the Tattersall shirts, however we also noted that the shirts were promoted in their catalogue at the same time as the ad appeared, and we considered that that was likely to increase demand for the shirts.

We noted that Jolliman estimated demand for the Tattersall shirts from the ad at 300 units, however we also noted that we had not seen evidence that showed on what that estimate was based. We noted the stock data provided by Jolliman was dated three days after the ad appeared and that, while they had 1353 units in stock altogether, the stock of some sizes and colours was very low and some sizes and colours were out of stock. While we noted that Jolliman had more shirts on order, we also noted that that order was not for all sizes and colours, and nor did it include, in some cases, items for which stock was already low.

We noted that it was Jolliman's policy to provide substitute products when stock of an item had been exhausted and we welcomed their assurance that their ads would, in future, include a statement to that effect, However, because the ad did not make clear that customers may receive a substitute product when items ran out, and because we had not seen evidence that Jolliman had made a reasonable estimate of demand for the shirts, or that they held sufficient stock to meet that demand, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness), 16.4 (Availability of products), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 30.1 (Availability).

2. Not upheld

We noted that the complainant was concerned that the substitute Champion shirt was inferior because its check pattern was not as neat, the cuffs were smaller and its sewing was of a poorer quality.

We examined the shirts provided by Jolliman. Overall we noted that the general style and design of the shirts was the same, and that the thickness and quality of the material and stitching were comparable. We noted that the cuffs on the Champion shirt were marginally shorter and that the finish on the pockets were straight as opposed to rounded on the Jolliman shirt. However, we did not consider that those variations amounted to a difference in quality between the two shirts. Because of that and because we understood from the invoices provided by Jolliman that there was only a few pence difference in the cost price of the two shirts, we concluded that the substitute product was of an equivalent quality and value to the advertised product.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 42.5a (Distance selling) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)