ASA Adjudication on RedSave.com

Ad

An online sales promotion for a digital photo frame stated "TODAY ONLY 7 Inch Digital Photo Frame Black + FREE 1GB SD Card worth £16.99 ... £39.99 RedSave Price Saving you £60.00. RRP Price £99.99".

Issue

1. Two complainants challenged whether the claim "TODAY ONLY" was misleading, because the digital photo frame and memory card were later advertised for the same price as a "limited offer".

2. One of the complainants also challenged whether the RRP of £99.99 for the digital photo frame was genuine.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. RedSave.com (RedSave) said, at the time the offer was promoted, it was correctly labelled as a "one day only" promotion because they had added the 1GB memory card as a free gift and had limited stocks available.

RedSave explained that after being made aware of the complaint they amended the ad to state "limited offer" rather than "today only". They said running the latter statement longer than intended was a creative error within their IT team.

RedSave said that, like many other websites, they sent cookies into a customer's computer if they viewed or purchased an item. They explained that, if a customer saved the RedSave page into their computer then they would still see that page even though RedSave might have subsequently changed the offer.

2. RedSave did not provide evidence to substantiate the RRP of the digital photo frame.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted RedSave's argument that the offer was initially correctly designated a "one day offer" because they had limited stocks of the photo frame and 1GB SD card available, but that due to an error the offer was not re-designated a "limited offer" as quickly as it should have been. However, we understood that the photo frame and 1GB SD card was still being advertised as a "LIMITED OFFER" for the price of £39.99. We considered that the ad should have made the time frame for the offer clear, by using text such as "while stocks last" or "limited offer for three months", or similar. We also considered that the advertisers should have based their expectations of how quickly they could sell their stocks on the basis of previous similar offers, in order to ensure, as far as possible, that there was sufficient demand for the product to be able to sell it within the limited time frame. Because we had not seen evidence to suggest that the advertisers had done so, and because the ad did not feature an end date to the offer, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 34.1 (Significant conditions for promotions).

2. Upheld

We noted that RedSave had not provided documentation that showed that the RRP of £99.99 for the digital photo frame was genuine. We therefore concluded that on that point the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 15.5 (Prices).

Action

We told RedSave not to use the term 'limited offer' unless they included an end date for the offer, and unless they had made a reasonable expectation of demand for the product. We told them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for advice on preparing similar ads in the future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)