ASA Adjudication on Moneysupermarket.com Group plc

Ad

Two TV ads for Moneysupermarket.com, a price comparison site:

a. The first ad featured a man and a woman pushing a shopping trolley, shopping for car insurance. A male voice-over said "In a recent survey Moneysupermarket.com was number one for saving you money on your car insurance". On-screen text stated "moneysupermarket.com is almost twice as likely to find you cheaper car insurance compared to 5 other leading comparison sites." The voice-over continued "We're number one, because we compare more quotes than anyone else to help you get the best price". The ad showed lots of animated cars each with a banner on top of the roof with the logo of a car insurance provider. One of the cars beeped and the woman said "That's the car insurance sorted, what's next?" The voice-over then said "Whatever you're looking for, moneysupermarket.com compares the market in seconds to get you the best deal. Moneysupermarket.com, the price comparison site." Text at the end of the ad stated “Moneysupermarket.com the price comparison site".

b. The second ad showed animated acrobats forming a pyramid. A male voice-over said "Now here's a nice little surprise for you: using a comparison site will not add any fees or commission to the price you end up paying. In fact, the prices Moneysupermarket.com show are completely transparent. Just another reason why we're the number one price comparison site." One of the acrobats pulled a cord to make the "one" in "moneysupermarket" light up. Text at the end of the second ad also stated "Moneysupermarket.com the price comparison site."

Issue

Gocompare.com Ltd (Go Compare) challenged whether the following comparison claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1.  "We're number one, because we compare more quotes than anyone else to help you get the best price" in ad (a), because they believed they compared more car insurance sites than Moneysupermarket.com, and

2.  "we're the number one price comparison site" in ad (b), because other comparison sites, including Go Compare, operated a similar pricing strategy and did not apply commission or fees.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1.  Moneysupermarket.com Group plc (Moneysupermarket) explained that they had provided Clearcast with two sets of data, dated March 2007 and March 2008.  They said each of the sets of data showed that on a specific date in those months Moneysupermarket had compared more motor insurance quotes than any of their competitors.  Moneysupermarket pointed out that the market they operated in was dynamic, and figures were constantly changing.  They explained that the data supplied was based on the number of motor insurance quotes available on their site compared to those of their competitors, which they said were available to check on their competitors' websites.  The number of quotes available on each website was logged once a month, although Moneysupermarket conceded that these numbers could change daily.  In an effort to provide more robust substantiation for their claims, they said they had also provided Clearcast with the average number of quotes they compared over a 12-month and a 17-month period, compared with each of their competitors.  They pointed out that this data showed that, on average, they had compared more motor insurance quotes than their competitors.  Moneysupermarket acknowledged that over the past two months Go Compare had compared more quotes than them, however they contended that this was over a short period of time.  They felt that to use figures over a longer period of time, such as 12 months or 17 months, painted a more accurate picture.  Moneysupermarket also provided us with all the data they had supplied Clearcast during the clearance stage.

Clearcast said they had taken extra care with this claim and had involved members of their staff who had experience with clearing ads for competitors of Moneysupermarket to ensure that the claims were supported by robust substantiation.  They had asked for a complete list of quote providers from their main competitors in order to evaluate the claim.  Clearcast provided us with the list of comparison sites and the number of insurance quotes each site provided and we noted that Moneysupermarket had 59 compared to 56 for Go Compare.  Because Moneysupermarket only had marginally more insurance quotes than Go Compare, Clearcast said they asked for evidence that Moneysupermarket had compared more quotes over the previous year, which they received.  Because information showed that, even when comparing the previous 17 months, Moneysupermarket had on average compared more quotes, Clearcast said they felt comfortable that Moneysupermarket had substantiated their claim to have compared more insurance quotes than anyone else.  They acknowledged that this particular market could change rapidly and said they felt a snapshot of the marketplace on its own could be misleading, which was why they placed more emphasis on data over longer periods.

2.  Moneysupermarket felt that it was clear that the ad did not imply that claims relating to their pricing strategy were unique amongst comparison sites.  They also felt that, because the voice-over had stated "Just another reason why we're the number one price comparison site" suggested to viewers that there were other reasons why Moneysupermarket could claim to be number one.  They explained that they had taken advice from Clearcast and had amended the ad specifically to avoid misleading viewers on this point.  Moneysupermarket pointed out that there were three other ads which had used the claim "Just another reason why we're the number one price comparison site" and that together the ads presented a broad range of reasons why they were number one.  They clarified that they believed they were number one, because independent data from Hitwise, an online marketing analyst, showed that Moneysupermarket had attracted more visitors than any of their competitors.

Clearcast said they had viewed the "number one" claim as one that could be verified in a number of different ways.  They were satisfied that Moneysupermarket had shown that they compared more quotes than their competitors.  They also received an independent survey which they said showed that, in February 2008, Moneysupermarket were twice as likely to find you cheaper car insurance than five other leading price comparison sites.  They also pointed to Hitwise data that showed more people had visited Moneysupermarket.com than their competitors.  They believed that, taken as a whole, Moneysupermarket had substantiated their claims to be the "number one" price comparison site.

Assessment

1.  Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged the evidence provided.  We noted that the independent survey showed that, in February 2008, Moneysupermarket were nearly twice as likely to find consumers cheaper car insurance than other leading comparison sites.  We considered that this information would be an important consideration for consumers when determining which price comparison site was number one.

We noted the Hitwise data showed a comparison of visits to different price comparison sites, and we noted that the data showed that, between January 2008 and May 2008, Moneysupermarket had the largest market share of visitors to their website.

We understood that the market for price comparison sites was relatively dynamic and we acknowledged that figures for the number of quotes each site compared could change frequently over the course of a month.  We accepted that, in order to show that Moneysupermarket was number one because they compared more car insurance quotes than any of their competitors, evidence of a higher number of quotes on average over a sustained period of time was likely to be more robust than a simple snapshot of a particular month.  We acknowledged that, on average, over a period of 12 months and 17 months both ending July 2008, Moneysupermarket had compared more quotes than their competitors.

We considered that, for all the reasons above, Moneysupermarket had substantiated and could make the claim to be "number one".

We noted that Go Compare had compared the same amount of quotes as Moneysupermarket for May 2008 and a higher number of quotes for June and July 2008 which is why they believed the claim "Were number one, because we compare more quotes than anyone else" was unsubstantiated and misleading.  However, given that Moneysupermarket were making a number one claim, we considered that viewers were likely to understand the claim "we compare more quotes than anyone else" to be a general one capable of being supported over a sustained period of time rather than over a short period.  Whilst we noted that Moneysupermarket could not claim to compare more quotes than anyone else between May and July 2008 we noted that, on average, over a period of 12 months and 17 months ending July 2008, they had compared more quotes than their competitors.  We therefore considered the claim was substantiated and was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Broadcast (TV) Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

2.  Not Upheld

We acknowledged that Go Compare were concerned that the ad implied that Moneysupermarket were unique in their pricing strategy.  We noted the arguments from Moneysupermarket and Clearcast that there were a number of different ways in which Moneysupermarket could substantiate their claim to be "number one".  We considered that, because they had stated "Just another reason" why were the number one price comparison site, viewers were likely to realise that there were a number of reasons why Moneysupermarket believed they were number one.  We disagreed with Go Compare that viewers would interpret the ad as meaning Moneysupermarket were unique in their pricing strategy.  As stated in point 1, we considered that the evidence we received substantiated Moneysupermarkets claim to be number one and concluded that ad (b) was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Broadcast (TV) Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)