ASA Adjudication on Richmond Bridge

Ad

A sponsored link for Richmond Bridge stated "Bridge Cards & Gifts www.Richmond-Bridge.co.uk Widest range of quality Bridge cards gifts and accessories”.

Issue

Simon Lucas Bridge Supplies challenged whether the claim "widest range of quality Bridge cards gifts and accessories" could be substantiated because they believed they had the widest range of bridge related gifts and paraphernalia.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Richmond Bridge (RB) believed they sourced better quality items than their competitors because they targeted the higher end of the bridge accessory market. RB said that over the past four years, other companies had also begun to source a variety of items, including high-end products, and acknowledged that they were now overlapping in their target market. RB believed that, unlike their competitors, they primarily provided a range of quality bridge cards, gifts and accessories rather than lower quality items such as napkins, cloths and jotting pads. They did, however, acknowledge that Simon Lucas had begun to stock high-end products.

RB explained that they commissioned a large number of handmade bridge boxes, custom glassware and handmade leather sets, which none of their competitors stocked. They also said they offered a personalisation service: a level of tailoring their competitors could not offer. Whilst RB accepted that the word "quality" was subjective, they did not believe it solely related to price. They nonetheless noted that, if price was the determining factor for whether a product could be described as a "quality" item, the average price of their ranges was higher than their competitors, affirming the fact that they sourced higher end products.

RB assessed the stock list on their website in comparison with Simon Lucas and self-rated whether they were "quality" gifts or not. They said that, although their rival stocked more items, these were predominantly in a lower value range and could not therefore be described as "quality" gifts.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered that the claim "Widest range of quality Bridge cards gifts and accessories" was likely to be interpreted by readers as referring to the extent of quality products that RB offered, rather than the number of items RB stocked or the comparative size of their business. Although we noted that Simon Lucas had not been named specifically in the ad, we considered that, given the niche market in which the advertiser operated, it was likely that readers would infer a comparison was being made between RB and other identifiable bridge accessory companies, such as Simon Lucas.

We noted the evidence sent by RB about the gifts available on their own website and that of their competitor Simon Lucas. We understood that, by RBs own assessment, Simon Lucas had 23 ranges that could be described as "quality" in comparison to RBs 22 ranges. Although we considered that it was acceptable for RB to claim that they offered a wide range of quality accessories, because we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that RB stocked a wider range of quality gifts than their competitors as implied by the ad, we concluded that the claim "Widest range of quality Bridge cards gifts and accessories" had not been substantiated and breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1, 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and or their products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told RB to ensure they held robust evidence before making comparative claims in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)