ASA Adjudication on Somerfield Stores Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for Somerfield stated “Half price on our pork loin steaks …” On-screen text stated “Half price £8.99 now £4.49 per kg” with the £8.99 price crossed out. Small text stated “Ends 19th August 2008. Subject to availability. Excludes forecourts.”

Issue

A viewer complained that the ad was misleading because she believed the pork steaks had never been sold at £8.99/kg.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Somerfield said the pork loin steaks were available during the promotion at the offer price of £4.49 per kg at approximately 880 stores (i.e. all stores except forecourts) and had been sold at the price of £8.99 in 375 stores nationally from 7 July to the start of the promotion on 6 August. They said the product had not been stocked at all in the rest of their stores between 7 July and 6 August. They offered to provide evidence of the sales figures in those 375 stores.  They believed they had used the same principles as those used by their competitors, and they were in accordance with the ASA's requirements.

Clearcast said the letter of substantiation they received prior to approval of the ad confirmed that the price reductions complied with the May 2008 BERR Pricing Practices Guide. They sent a copy of the letter, which stated that Somerfield believed they met the following requirements:  that the goods could be sold in reasonable numbers at higher price; that higher priced goods were available in significant quantities; and that the period of the higher priced offer was sufficiently long to be a genuine offer of sale.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the BERR Pricing Practices Guide stated "a price used as a basis for comparison should have been [the retailers] most recent price available for 28 consecutive days or more" and that "the period of time for which the new (lower) price will be available should not be so long that the comparison becomes misleading".  We also noted the Guide specified that the higher retail price should be genuine, demonstrable, for example, by the fact that the product could reasonably be expected to sell in significant numbers at the higher price, that a significant quantity was on sale at that price, and for a sufficient period of time, and that Somerfield believed they met those criteria.    

We noted the product had been available at the higher price at 375 stores and that it had not been available, even at another price, at the remaining stores.  We also noted the BERR Guide was not specific about the number of stores at which a product should have appeared at the higher price.  We were satisfied that the £8.99 price had applied in a significant proportion of stores nationwide, and we considered that consumers would not have been materially disadvantaged by the fact that the ad did not indicate that the product had not previously been available in all stores at £8.99.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.   

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code Rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.3 (Qualifications) and 5.3.1(Accurate pricing) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)