Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, one of which was Upheld and the other Not upheld.
Ad description
Claims on a website promoting a driving instructor franchise, www.reddrivingschool.com, included text on a page headed "Get Your Fees Back!" that stated "For a limited time only, if you choose to commit to the complete training package you may be entitled to a full refund of your training fees". Text on a different page stated "Once qualified, RED will support you by providing the best value franchise in the industry with one price to pay and no additional charges". Text on a separate page stated "Due to customer demand for lessons we need more instructors and so for a limited time only we are offering our instructor training course for only £1,300, a 50% discount on the normal course price.* Hurry though as this offer has been extended to the 30th September 2013". The asterix in that sentence linked to a footnote that stated "Standard course price is £2,595 when paid in full".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Once qualified, RED will support you by providing the best value franchise in the industry ..." because they believed that other companies offered better value; and
2. "Due to customer demand for lessons we need more instructors ..." because they believed current instructors with the company were struggling to find pupils.
Response
1. RDS Driving Services Ltd t/a RED Driving School said they did not have the lowest cost franchise in the industry, but they had carried out competitor research and believed their franchise delivered the best value when considering the price paid, the ongoing level of support provided and the earnings potential. They explained their reasons for believing that they offered the best value franchise, which included the ability of their instructors to earn more than the majority of other driving schools and independent franchises, the provision of an online diary management system for instructors and pupils, and free marketing materials. They said that it would not have been practical to list all of their company benefits on the website and they therefore had only included some of the main benefits. They provided a spreadsheet comparing the benefits listed under the "best value" claim on their website with those offered by their major competitors, who they considered to be the larger driving schools in the UK, which included an independent comparison of the earnings potential of each company's instructors. They stated that some other driving schools offered similar services and benefits, but that none of them provided all those listed.
2. RED Driving School provided spreadsheet information that showed the number of driving instructors currently on their franchise. They said it was an industry standard for driving instructors to require one new pupil per week to maintain their work levels and stated that they followed that model. They provided a weekly booking data breakdown for the previous 20 weeks that showed the average number of new bookings per instructor per week and stated that that average did not take into account any work generated directly by the franchisees themselves. The spreadsheet also showed that RED Driving School had had to turn down a large number of bookings over that period due to lack of coverage or availability by their current franchisees.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers who visited the sections of RED Driving School’s website that related to their driving instructor franchise would be likely to have some knowledge about the key characteristics of franchise packages offered by other driving schools. We considered that, in that context, the "best value" claim was likely to be understood as an objective claim that was capable of substantiation. We noted that the claim was followed by a list of some of the benefits and rewards included with a RED Driving School franchise and considered that consumers were likely to understand that those criteria formed the basis on which RED Driving School claimed their franchise offered the "best value". We therefore considered that they would expect that RED Driving School had objectively compared the benefits of their franchise with similar offerings from other driving schools, and had found their franchise superior to all others, taking into account the price paid.
We understood that RED Driving School believed they offered the best value franchise because of the benefits they offered their instructors and not solely because of the price of their franchise. However, we considered price to be a primary factor in a consumer's judgement on the value of a product or service, and therefore considered that the price of the franchise would necessarily form a significant part of a consumer's decision as to which company offered the best value. We noted that RED Driving School did not offer the cheapest franchise and therefore considered that the benefits conferred by their franchise needed to be substantially superior to those offered by their competitors in order for their "best value" claim to be substantiated.
We noted the comparative information provided by RED Driving School. Whilst the combination of specific benefits offered varied amongst the driving schools, we considered that the overall franchise package offered by many of their competitors was similar to that offered by RED Driving School. For example, all of the companies that had been compared offered a company car with at least one of their franchise options, and many of them offered a customer service facility. Although we acknowledged that RED Driving School appeared to offer some benefits that their main competitors did not, such as free six-month subscription to adiNEWS magazine, we did not consider those additional benefits to be sufficient to support the "best value" claim in light of the fact that their franchise was not the cheapest.
Because we considered that consumers would understand the "best value" claim to take into account the benefits offered in exchange for the price paid, and because we did not consider that the benefits listed on the RED Driving School website were sufficiently different from those offered by their main competitors as to offset the fact that they did not offer the lowest price, we concluded that the "best value" claim was likely to mislead.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code 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 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
2. Not upheld
We noted the spreadsheet information provided by RED Driving School that showed the average number of new pupils received by their instructors per week over the previous 20 weeks. We also noted that they had had to turn down a large number of bookings in that time due to lack of coverage or availability by their current instructors, and considered that meant that they did not currently have the appropriate provision to meet the demand for their services. Because it appeared that they had sufficient customer demand to allow them to hire new instructors, we concluded that the claim "Due to customer demand for lessons we need more instructors ..." was unlikely to mislead.
On this point we investigated under CAP Code
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),
3.38
3.38
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) and
20.2
20.2
Employment marketing communications must relate to genuine vacancies and potential employees must not be asked to pay for information.
Living and working conditions must not be misrepresented. Quoted earnings must be precise; if one has to be made, a forecast must not be unrepresentative. If income is earned from a basic salary and commission, commission only or in some other way, that must be made clear.
(Employment, homework schemes and business opportunities) but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told RDS Driving Services Ltd not to claim that they offered the "best value" franchise unless they held documentary evidence to prove that was the case.
