Ad description
A sales promotion on kgbdeals.co.uk, stated "£34.99 for a pair of Emma short sheepskin-lined boots worth £68.54 from BearPaw Boots - save 49% on these winter warmers, available in three fabulous colours!".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "worth £68.54" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. the image was misleading, because the photograph was not of the exact product on offer.
Response
1. Kgb (UK) (kgb) said prior to running the deal they checked the price of the product online and submitted a screenshot of the "Emma" boots available online from a retailer for £68.54. They said that was the price upon which they based their value claim and explained there were seasonal price variations on items of clothing, particularly for winter boots.
2. They stated they featured two different styles of boot on the deal at the same time and that photographs of both styles of boot alternated on the website every few seconds. They said they were informed by the merchant that both photographs accurately represented the style of each boot that was being advertised and therefore they did not consider the images were misleading.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad stated the original price of the Emma boots was £68.54, and considered that consumers would therefore expect that the product was usually sold at that price. We understood that the product was for sale on the US based Bearpaw website for the equivalent of £40. Whilst kgb did submit a screenshot of a retailer selling the product for £68.54, we had not received robust evidence to demonstrate that that was the price at which the product was generally sold. We therefore concluded that, because kgb had not substantiated the recommended retail price claim, the offer in the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) and 3.40 3.40 Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
We noted kgb said they featured two different styles of boot on the deal, however, we had seen no evidence of that and we noted the text in the ad only referred to the "Emma short sheepskin-lined boots". We noted the image used on the ad was that of the "Abigail short sheepskin-lined boots", which we understood were sold at a higher price than the "Emma" boots on the Bearpaw website. Because the photograph was not of the exact product for sale, we concluded the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form again. We told kgb to ensure that recommended retail prices reflected the price at which a product was generally sold in future and to ensure images were of the exact product on offer.
