ASA Adjudication on Johnston Press plc

Ad

A regional press ad promotion featured a voucher for free meals at a local restaurant. It was headlined “Come and help Hastings Eating & Drinking House Celebrate! Complimentary main course for every reader”. Text stated “ … The Hastings have invited Lytham St Annes Express readers to come along and sample their cuisine and receive this extra special offer - a complimentary main course for every reader”. Small print stated “This offer applies Tuesday - Thursday to the a la Carte menu ONLY and diners must order a minimum of two courses each. The offer is valid until the end of February. Diners must take completed coupon to receive the offer”. The voucher itself stated “Complimentary Main Course! To take advantage of this offer please take this along to The Hastings when you have your meal. No photocopies accepted. No cash alternative”.

Issue

The complainant objected that the ad, particularly the claim "FOR EVERY READER", misleadingly implied that each voucher holder was entitled to a complimentary main course, because when he tried to redeem one voucher per person in a party of six, he was told that the offer was 'buy one get one free' and the group would only receive one free main course for every two ordered.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Johnston Press said the wording for the ad in the newspaper was provided to them by a public relations (PR) company on behalf of Hastings Eating & Drinking House. They said they sent a proof of the ad to the PR company and the wording was changed on three occasions before final copy approval was given and the ad was published. The ad ran in only one edition of the regional newspaper. Following publication, Johnston Press received four complaints from readers who stated that, on presentation of the vouchers at the restaurant, they were allowed only one complimentary main course per couple. Johnston Press relayed those complaints to the PR company, who stated that the published offer should have advertised one free main course (the cheapest) when two people both ordered a starter and a main course from the la carte menu. A free main course was not available if desserts were ordered. Johnston Press explained that, because the mistake lay with the PR company, they agreed between them that all vouchers would be redeemed until the end of February in accordance with the published offer, and every person presenting a voucher would receive a free main course. Johnston Press said they also received a guarantee that all complaints had been resolved and customers reimbursed.

The PR company responded on behalf of Hastings Eating & Drinking House (Hastings). They did not agree with all the comments made by Johnston Press. They said they received only one proof of the ad and made several alterations to it. A second proof was offered but was not received because of problems with e-mail. Because of the deadline they were working towards, they were forced to approve the ad without having seen a final version. They said the original copy they submitted to the newspaper referred to a "complimentary main course" and did not state "for every reader"; that phrase was erroneously added by Johnston Press. Having seen the first proof, they requested the condition "maximum value £22" to be added to the copy, but it was not. They also admitted that, in hindsight, the ad should have made clear that the offer applied to starters and main courses only, although they had not requested that condition to be added to the copy.

The PR company said the offer was hugely popular and an unprecedented number of readers took vouchers to the restaurant. They said they had tried to accommodate diners whose interpretations of the offer were different from Hastings' intended interpretation. They had telephoned the complainant to explain that desserts were not part of the la carte menu and hence not part of the offer (the ad stated " ... This offer applies ... to the a la Carte menu ONLY ..."), and because his party had ordered only two starters from the la carte menu to accompany their six main courses, they could use only two vouchers. After receiving the ASA's complaint notification, they said they would be happy for the complainant to receive the offer as it should have been published: a complimentary main course for one person when two people both ordered two courses from the la carte menu.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that the complainant was in a party of six and the group ordered two starters, six main courses and six desserts. When they presented six vouchers, expecting to receive six complimentary main courses, they were told the offer was for each party of two and the cheaper of the main courses would be free. They were also told that desserts were not part of the la carte menu, which meant the group of six could use only two vouchers.

We considered readers would infer from the ad that every voucher holder was entitled to a complimentary main course when they ordered two courses. Because there was no indication in the ad that desserts were not part of the la carte menu, we considered readers would expect that the two courses could either be a starter and a main course or a dessert and a main course. We understood that, as a result of a communication breakdown between Hastings and Johnston Press, the ad misrepresented the actual offer, which was one complimentary main course per couple when both people ordered a starter and a main course from the la carte menu.

We noted Johnston Press and Hastings had given different versions of events; each said the other was to blame for the terms of the offer being published incorrectly. We were concerned that the phrase "for every reader" had been published by mistake. We understood that, contrary to what Johnston Press said, not all vouchers had been redeemed until the end of February in accordance with the published offer, every person presenting a voucher had not always received a free main course, and not all complaints had been resolved. We understood the complainant had not been reimbursed, despite complaining at the time of his visit and afterwards. We noted that, in response to our complaint notification, Hastings were willing to offer the complainant a complimentary main course for one person when two people both ordered two courses from the la carte menu. They had not offered to reimburse him the cost of the four main courses, despite his reasonable assumption from the ad that each person in his party was entitled to a free main course, because they said the offer had been published incorrectly. Because the ad had incorrectly stated the terms of the offer, and the offer as published had not been honoured, we concluded that the ad was misleading and breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told Johnston Press and Hastings to ensure that the terms and conditions of offers were published accurately in future, to avoid misleading readers.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)