ASA Adjudication on Superdrug Stores plc

Ad

A national press ad, for Superdrug, was headed "Do these Boots prices stink? Visit Superdrug before splashing out". Pictured below were four bottles of perfume. Above each bottle text stated the Superdrug price, the Boots price and the claimed saving by shopping at Superdrug. Small print at the bottom of the ad stated "Price comparison carried out in Boots Whitgift Centre and Valley Park on the 19th November 2008. Prices correct at time of going to press ... Offers end Wednesday 17th December 2008. Subject to availability. Selected stores only".

Issue

Boots UK Ltd (Boots) believed the ad was misleading because it did not make clear that Superdrug were comparing their promotional prices with Boots' standard prices.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Superdrug Stores plc (Superdrug) said the advertised prices were their standard prices. They sent the prices at which the products had been sold between 11 June 2008 and 18 February 2009.    

They said they had included the "offers end" date because they regularly reviewed their standard prices and wanted the opportunity to be able to change their prices on that date if necessary. They said the "offers end" date was a pledge to their customers that they would continue to offer the quoted prices (or lower) for that period.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA reviewed the pricing information for the perfumes. We noted that Lacoste Pink, advertised at £17.99, had been sold at £17.99 and £15.00 between the appearance of the ad on 22 November and the "offers end" date of 17 December, but that the price increased to £19.99 after that date. We noted the prices of the other products had stayed the same after the "offers end" date, but that one of them, CK Euphoria, had been priced at £27.49 before the ad appeared between 6 and 19 November, then was priced at £20 in the ad.

Although we noted Superdrugs assertion that none of the products was on promotion from the time the ad appeared to the "offers end" date, we considered that the changes in price for two of the products, combined with the "offers end" date contradicted that view. Because we considered that two of the products were on promotion at the time the ad appeared, but the ad did not make clear which products they were, we concluded the comparison was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)