Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A direct mailing in the form of a business card for an estate agents featured the branch manager's name and contact details. On the reverse of the card text in handwritten font stated "Please call me about the marketing of your property". Below, text in printed font stated "If you have instructed another agent the terms and conditions of those instructions must be considered to avoid a possible liability to pay two commissions in addition to any withdrawal fees or disbursements".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad:
1. was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication; and
2. caused unjustifiable distress.
Response
1. William H Brown said the reverse of the business card stated "Please call me about the marketing of your property" which met the need for marketing communications to "state their true purpose" as per guidance issued by the Property Ombudsman. The ad was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication because it made clear that they wished to discuss the marketing of the recipient's property. It also included a warning that there could be a liability to pay two commissions if recipients who were selling their property had already instructed another estate agent.
2. They had specifically issued guidance to their branches to avoid any wording that was likely to cause distress to recipients and were satisfied that the wording on this ad did not.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA understood the business cards were typically issued to addresses where it was known that the owner was looking to sell their property either with another estate agent or privately. We considered such recipients were likely to understand from the handwritten claim on the business card "Please call me about the marketing of your property", related to the sale of their property and was sent by someone who knew about the sale. Recipients were therefore likely to think this was private correspondence from William H Brown relating to the sale of their property rather than marketing material. We considered the business card was not clearly identifiable as marketing material to its recipients and concluded that it breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.1 2.1 Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such. (Recognition of marketing communications).
2. Upheld
We considered, when targeted at recipients who were looking to sell their property, the business card did not make clear it was marketing material nor did it make clear why William H Brown were asking recipients to call them. In that context, we considered it was likely to cause unjustifiable distress to recipients by implying that William H Brown had information relating to the sale of their property. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention. (Harm and offence).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told William H Brown to ensure future marketing communications were identifiable as such and did not cause distress to recipients.
