Ad description
A TV ad and a press ad for a sofa retailer:
a. The TV ad featured various shots of sofas set to fast-paced music while their prices appeared next to them. On-screen text appeared in quotation marks at various points during the ad featuring various claims about CSL's selling points and quality of service including "CSL is different" and "... they only do sofas so the specialists are really helpful. Towards the end of the ad a female voice-over stated, "CSL, the UK's largest dedicated sofa specialist."
b. The press ad, for a sofa with a built-in sound system, showed a woman sitting on a sofa. Large text below stated "JAWS WILL DROP IT'S £499". Smaller text at the bottom of the ad stated "The UK's Largest Dedicated Sofa Specialist".
Issue
DFS challenged whether the claim, in both ads, that CSL were "The UK's Largest Dedicated Sofa Specialist" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
CS Lounge Suites Ltd (CSL) explained that they were a specialist sofa retailer based in Warrington with a national network of stores and an annual turnover in excess of £110m from their core sofa product range. CSL said they were a sofa specialist, as was made clear in the ads and logo and this fact was also clear to those who visited the website. They said they offered only sofa upholstery products. Their claim to be the UK's largest dedicated sofa specialist was based simply on the fact that there were no other companies of their size by volume of sales, which specialised in only sofas. They said all of their competitors who were a similar size were all also general furniture retailers selling a wide variety of other furniture.
CSL provided an independent retail report for furniture from Plimsoll which listed retailers in the furniture sector by size, based on turnover. CSL were shown at position 14 in that report and were the only retailer who was a sofa specialist rather than a general furnisher in that top 14, hence demonstrating that they were the UK's largest dedicated sofa specialist.
Clearcast said the approval of the claim was based on the Plimsoll report supplied by CSL. They said that report was an industry overview of furniture retailers and was therefore definitive. They said CSL had assured them that was the most recent data available. They said the ad made clear that the "largest" claim related specifically to dedicated sofa specialists and therefore believed that the claim was sufficiently substantiated and not misleading.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that CSL had explained that they sold only sofas, and we considered that this was what consumers would understand from the claim "dedicated sofa specialist". We noted that the TV ad specifically stated that CSL "was different" and "only do sofas" and we noted that was the case on their website. However, we also understood that their individual stores also sold other furniture, decor and soft furnishings and we therefore considered that CSL had not demonstrated that they were a dedicated sofa specialist, as described in the claim.
Notwithstanding that, we considered that in order to substantiate the claim that they were "the UK's largest dedicated sofa specialist", CSL needed to provide comparative, robust evidence which clearly set out those companies in the UK that sold only sofas and showed that CSL held the largest market share of that group. Given that the "largest" claim was not qualified to explain the basis, we considered it could be interpreted to mean largest in terms of number of unit sales or turnover and we expected to see evidence of both. We noted the Plimsoll report provided by CSL. However, that report compared furniture retailers in general and not just dedicated sofa retailers. Additionally it ranked them by turnover alone and we had not seen evidence of unit sales.
Because CSL had not shown that they sold only sofas or that they held the greatest market share in that sector, we concluded that the claim the "UK's largest dedicated sofa specialist" was misleading.
Ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other Comparisons).
Action
Ad (a) must not be broadcast again in its current form.
Ad (b) must not appear again in its current form.
We told CSL not to make market leading claims unless they were accurate and robustly substantiated.
