ASA Adjudication on The Optical Express Group

Ad

a. A TV ad, for Optical Express, stated "When you enjoy life you want to enjoy it to the full and Optical Express laser vision correction helps you do exactly that from only £395 per eye." At the end of the ad the voice-over stated "For laser vision correction from only £395 per eye, Optical Express vision for life." On-screen text stated "from only £395 per eye". Smaller text beneath stated "Subject to prescription. Price applies to LASIK and LASEK".

b. A leaflet, also for Optical Express, stated in large text “SEE CLEARLY WITHOUT YOUR SPECS OR CONTACT LENSES! LASER EYE SURGERY FROM ONLY £395 PER EYE". The reverse of the leaflet repeated the "from" price in large text.

Issue

The complainants objected that the claim "from only £395 per eye" was misleading, because they were quoted much higher prices and were told that the advertised price corresponded to the correction of very mild visual impairment only.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

Response

The Optical Express Group (Optical Express Southern Ltd, Optical Express Ltd and DCM Optical Clinic plc) said the market for laser vision correction surgery comprised all people who required vision correction and who were clinically suitable for such surgery.  They told us the number of patients whose prescription details were stored on their electronic database.  They acknowledged that the database did not represent all people in the UK who required vision correction, but argued that the sample was large enough for them to draw a conclusion about the UK product market. They provided figures to show the proportion of their patients whose degree of visual impairment would make them suitable for laser surgery at £395 per eye.  They pointed out that, for a significant number of those patients, their individual clinical circumstances would mean they would not be suitable for laser vision correction surgery at any price point. They claimed that when those people were excluded the proportion of the product market that was clinically suitable for surgery and whom surgery at the £395 price point was available was likely to be greater still.      

Optical Express disagreed that only very mild visual impairment could be treated at £395 per eye.  They argued that many millions of people in the UK fell within the relevant prescription range.  They asserted that the description "from only £395 per eye" was not misleading, and that it accurately and reasonably reflected the starting point from which laser vision correction surgery was available.  

Optical Express provided data to show the proportion of their laser eye surgery that was performed at the £395 price point.  They also provided the same data for their current pricing policy.

The BACC believed the description was not misleading.  They said "from" prices were frequently used, indicated the lowest price whic the product was sold, and, by the same token, suggested that higher prices also applied.  They pointed out that the disclaimer on the TV ad indicated that the price depended on the prescription.  They added that it seemed clear to them that treatment was available at a starting price that was not available to everyone and that the starting price depended on a person's prescription.  They said they usually required the "from" price to apply to 10% of the customer base, and confirmed that the evidence they had seen showed the proportion exceeded that.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted from the data provided that surgery at £395 per eye was available only to those who required a relatively low level of vision correction.  We considered, however, that Optical Express had demonstrated that people with those requirements constituted a reasonably significant proportion of the product market. We noted the number of eyes that had had laser vision correction and that a reasonable percentage of those had had correction at the price of £395 per eye.    We considered that potential customers would understand that the cost of surgery depended on their individual prescription and they would not assume that the starting price of £395 would necessarily apply for them.   We concluded that the claim "from only £395 per eye" was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the TV ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code Rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing) but did not find it in breach.

We investigated the leaflet under CAP code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 15.4 (Prices) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)