Ad description
The "Sale dresses" page of the website www.frenchconnection.com, visited on 5 December 2012, offered a product called "SPOTLIGHT DRESS" at £120, reduced from £125.
Issue
The complainant, who believed that the dress had never been sold at £125, challenged whether the reference to that price was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
French Connection (London) Ltd (French Connection) explained that the dress in question had originally been put on sale at £125 on 10 March 2012, and that on 9 July 2012 they had reduced the price to £120. They provided copies of orders made by customers buying the dress at those two price points. They stated that on 6 December 2012, after the complaint to the ASA was made, the price had been further reduced to £60.50. They stated that the majority of sales for the dress had been achieved at the higher £125 price.
They noted that the price comparison made on their website was with the most recent previous price for the product, which had been available for more than 28 consecutive days within the previous six months. They acknowledged that by the time of the complaint the dress had been available at £120 for a slightly longer period of time than it had been sold at the higher price, but said because of the substantial length of time at which the £125 price had been offered, and because of the higher volume of sales at £125 as opposed to £120, they did not consider that the price comparison on their website was invalid or misleading.
Assessment
Upheld
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 comparisons with a trader's own previous price should generally use, as the basis for comparison, the most recent previous price for the product, which should have been available for at least 28 consecutive days and last offered no more than six months earlier. It also stated that the period of time for which the new (lower) price would be available should not be so long that the comparison became misleading. Although we acknowledged that that might depend on the circumstances, the Guide suggested that the period of time for which the lower price would be available should not be more than that for which the higher price had been available.
We acknowledged the copies of customer orders provided by French Connection, which demonstrated that between 27 April and 5 July some customers had purchased the product at £125, and between 23 July and 3 December others had done so for £120.
By the time of the complaint to the ASA, the dress had been on sale at £120 for approximately 30 days longer than it had ever been sold at £125. We considered that, particularly because of the temporary nature of many sales in the fashion industry, most visitors to the French Connection website would understand that the dress was usually sold for £125 and that its price had only recently been reduced to £120. We noted, however, that not only had the dress been on sale at £120 for almost five months by the time of the complaint to the ASA, but that that time span exceeded the period at which it had been available for the higher price. We considered that, without any further information making clear the basis of the comparison, the price comparison implied that £120 was a short-term promotional price for the dress, when in fact it had been established as a selling price for a significant period of time. We therefore concluded that the reference to the £125 price-point on the website was misleading.
The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.17 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).
Action
The claim must not appear again in its current form. We told French Connection to take care when advertising sale prices to ensure that the basis of the price comparison being made, if likely to differ from consumer expectations, was clear.
