Ad description
A national press ad for a home furnishing company stated "END OF SEASON sale. UP TO 80% OFF. Dwell.co.uk for full sale list". The ad included images and prices for four pieces of furniture including the "RIPPLE rocker", the price for which was stated as "£229 £45." The £229 price was scored through and the £45 price was stated in more prominent text. The "LILLE corner sofa" was also shown with the price "£995 £299", with the £995 price scored through and the £299 price stated in more prominent text.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the prices displayed for the "RIPPLE rocker" and the "LILLE corner sofa" were misleading and could be substantiated because they could not find the products for the listed prices on the website.
Response
COIN Furniture Ltd t/a Dwell said the ad featured the aubergine extra-large Ripple rocker (rocker) and the oatmeal left-hand Lille corner sofa (sofa). They said they started trading as COIN Furniture Ltd on 4 July with a mix of furniture that had been purchased from Dwell as part of the takeover package. They said they had therefore based their original prices on Dwell's previous selling prices and they considered the full retail prices of both products were reasonable. They said they did not have sales information for the products prior to 4 July.
Dwell said they offered a regular and extra-large version of the rocker and both were available to purchase at the time that the ad went to print. They said the ad referred to the extra-large version, but they had omitted to mention the sizing in the ad. They said the regular version had also been discounted and was available to purchase for £119 at the time the ad was published. They stated that they had 42 extra-large aubergine rockers in stock when they began trading, which they originally sold at the full price of £229, but they had only sold two at that price. They said they rationalised their product range in August and discontinued the aubergine extra-large rocker because it had not been selling well. They therefore reduced the price from £229 to £45 on 21 August. They said there were 40 aubergine rockers in stock on 21 August and they sold out of that product on the evening of 22 August.
Dwell said they had seven sofas in stock when they started trading and that those were originally on sale at the full price of £995, but that they did not sell any at that price. They said the oatmeal sofa was also discontinued in August and had therefore been reduced from £995 to £499 on 5 August. They said they sold three at the initial reduced price of £499. They further reduced the price to £299 on 21 August, when they had four in stock. They stated that they sold out on the evening of 22 August. They provided sales information showing the sale of the rocker and the sofa from 4 July until the end of the promotion.
Dwell said the ad was submitted for circulation at lunchtime on 21 August and they had stock for both products when it was submitted, as the sale went live on the evening of 21 August. The ad was run on 23 and 24 August. They said they had not expected the products to sell out so quickly, but it was too late to withdraw the ad once they had realised that the products had sold out, as it had already gone to print. They said they aimed to avoid that situation in future by not applying any large mark-downs of featured products until the day the ad was circulated. They said they did not place a notice on the website stating that the products had sold out, but that the products would not have been available on the website. They said their products automatically dropped off the website when they sold out and a failed product search would have come back with the message "Sorry, your search found no results. Here are some of our most popular products."
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that both the rocker and the sofa were available at the prices stated in the ad from 21 to 22 August. However, those products had both sold out by the time the ad appeared on 23 August. We appreciated Dwell's assurance that they would ensure that they did not apply any large discounts to products until the day the ad promoting the price reduction was circulated in order to avoid the same issue in the future. However, whilst we acknowledged that it may not have been possible for Dwell to have withdrawn the ad once they had realised that they had sold out of those products, we considered that they could have taken steps to ensure as far as possible that consumers were aware that those products were no longer in stock ‒ for example, by placing a message on the website.
The ASA noted the industry best practice regarding price comparisons as outlined in the Pricing Practices Guide (the Guide) from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The Guide was not binding on traders, the Courts or the ASA, but was to be taken into account in marketing communications, as made clear in the CAP Code. The Guide recommended that a price used as a basis for a comparison should be the most recent available price for 28 days or more. We acknowledged that that need not always be the case and that, if a comparison used in an ad differed from that advice, the basis of the comparison should be made clear. We noted that, although the sofa had been on sale for the higher price of £995 for more than 28 consecutive days, the sofa had been on sale for an intervening price of £499 immediately before the lower advertised price of £299, but that was not stated in the ad.
Because Dwell had not made clear the pricing history of the sofa, and because they did not take appropriate action to inform consumers that the products had sold out once the ad had been circulated, we concluded that the ad had breached the Code.
The ad breached the 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) and 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. and 3.29 3.29 Marketers must monitor stocks. If a product becomes unavailable, marketers must, whenever possible, withdraw or amend marketing communications that feature that product. (Prices).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told COIN Furniture Ltd t/a Dwell to take care when advertising price reductions to ensure that it was made clear where a product had been sold at an intervening price after the higher advertised price. We also told them to ensure that they withdrew or amended marketing communications that featured products if those products became unavailable.
