ASA Adjudication on Redcats (Brands) Ltd

Ad

A direct mailing, for Empire Stores, featured three images of a Multi Cooker and was headlined "Our exclusive FREE GIFT especially for you with your order!". Text above the largest image of the Multi Cooker stated "FREE Normally £29.99*". The price was crossed out and the asterisk linked to small print on the back page of the mailing that stated "Additional Multi Cookers can be purchased for £29.99, by simply quoting catalogue number AB1052". Text inside the mailing stated "Hurry and claim this amazing Multi Cooker FREE with your next order ... For you, our exclusive FREE gift: Multi Cooker, normally £29.99*!". Text that described various features of the product was linked to an image of the Multi Cooker by arrows. One item of text stated "1.3 litre capacity, 500W power". Under the headline "Quality Assurance", text on the back of the mailing stated "in the unlikely event that the item you receive does not meet your expectations we will endeavour to replace your gift with one of equal or higher value". Other text on the same page stated "HURRY, DON'T MISS OUT!".

Issue

The complainant, who was sent a different Multi Cooker from the one featured in the ad, challenged:

1. the availability of the free Multi Cooker and

2. whether the substituted product was equivalent in quality and price to the one advertised.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Empire Stores expressed their regret at the complainant's experience and said they had now sent the Multi Cooker originally featured in their mailing to him. They said the offer had originally been made to customers of Empire Store's sister companies in the UK and that, because of the success of the offer, they had decided to extend it to customers of Empire Stores. They said the sister company had ordered from two suppliers and that, when Empire Stores prepared their promotion, they used the most recent of the two suppliers, believing that they were ordering the same product at around the same price. They sent invoices in support of their argument. They said when the Multi Cookers arrived, they discovered that, although they functioned similarly to the original product, they were different in appearance and had a capacity of 1 litre, whereas the original product had a capacity of 1.3 litres. They chose to send the alternative Multi Cooker to customers to avoid further delay and set up a team to deal with any customers who were dissatisfied as a result. They said demand had not exceeded their forecast and sent figures that showed how many customers had been sent the mailing, what the response rate was and how many gifts were sent out.

2. Empire Stores said the Multi Cookers had the same function and sent product instructions in support of their argument. They said the original was a two piece set with a hot plate and a metal pan, while the alternative Multi Cooker was a stoneware pot that sat enclosed in the heating element. They said the original Multi Cooker had a capacity of 1.3 litres and the alternative had a capacity of 1 litre. They sent invoices that showed the Multi Cookers were similar in price.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that Empire Stores had been unable to provide the Multi Cooker featured in their direct mailing. However, we considered that the invoices showed Empire Stores had ordered the Multi Cookers in good faith and had responded to an unanticipated difficulty in supplying the correct product by offering a substitute to avoid causing unnecessary disappointment. We noted they had taken steps to deal with dissatisfied customers and although the complainant had experienced difficulty, we noted Empire Stores had since sent him the product originally featured in the mailing. We considered the figures supplied by Empire Stores showed they had made a reasonable estimate of the likely response to the offer and had sufficient stock of the alternative product to meet that response. We did not object.

On this point, we investigated the mailing under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 16.1 (Availability of products), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules), 30.1 and 30.4 (Availability), but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

Although we noted the original Multi Cooker had a slightly larger capacity, we considered that the Multi Cookers functioned in the same way and that they were substantially the same in price. We did not object.

On this point, we investigated the mailing under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 30.4 (Availability), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)