ASA Adjudication on Specsavers Optical Group Ltd
Specsavers Optical Group Ltd
La Villiaze
St Andrews
Guernsey
Channel Islands
GY6 8YP
Date:
25 March 2009
Media:
Leaflet
Sector:
Health and beauty
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
74083
Ad
A leaflet, for Specsavers, stated “At Specsavers Opticians, our primary concern is the health of your eyes and the quality of the glasses that are dispensed for you. That is why we recommend that you have your eyes tested every two years, and, when you buy glasses from us, they are dispensed by our highly trained and qualified staff.”
Issue
The complainant objected that the claim "when you buy glasses from us, they are dispensed by our highly trained and qualified staff" was misleading because it gave the impression that all dispensing was carried out by qualified dispensing opticians, when in fact the majority were not.
CAP Code (Edition 11)
Response
Specsavers said, since dispensing underwent partial deregulation in 1984, staff who dispensed glasses did not have to be qualified. They explained that despite the deregulation, they still "highly trained" their staff, as stated in the leaflet. They said some staff, who carried out dispenses, were qualified either as Ophthalmic Opticians or as Dispensing Opticians (DOs). They said they had on average two qualified DOs per store. They therefore believed the claim was accurate. They pointed out that they were the employer with the largest number of trainees working towards DO qualifications.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood from the General Optical Council (GOC) that it was not necessary to be a qualified DO to dispense glasses (except in exceptional cases such as for certain high-level prescriptions) and that a dispensing assistant without formal training would be able to do so. We considered, however, that readers would understand from the claim "highly trained and qualified staff" that glasses would be dispensed by people who held a formal qualification as well as the appropriate training. We concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)