Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
The "Latest Offers" page of www.champneys.com promoted a "3 Nights for 2 Break. Prices from £509.00". The offer included a three-night stay, access to the spa's facilities and three treatments.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the "3 Nights for 2" offer was misleading and could be substantiated, because she understood the standard price for a two-night stay and the treatments cost less than £509.00; and
2. the "3 Nights for 2" offer was misleading, because she understood that she could purchase a three-night stay and the treatments for less than £509.00 via a different promotion offered on the site.
Response
1. Champneys Henlow Ltd (Champneys) stated that, as advertised on their website, the cost of a "2 night spa break" at the Tring spa started from £509.00 per person. They provided a selection of invoices which showed that customers had paid at least £509.00 for a two-night stay, but that some customers had paid more for a premier or superior room.
2. Champneys said that the ‘3 for 2’ offer was the cheapest option available to consumers at the time it was promoted. They acknowledged that there was a concurrent offer for a "1 night relax" break when the ‘3 for 2’ offer was available, and that there was no restriction to prevent a customer from booking three "1 night relax" offers on consecutive days, but they highlighted that as per the terms and conditions, the customer would have to check out of their room at 11 am each day, and then check-in again at 2 pm, so they would not have the opportunity to use their room for the entire day, or necessarily be given the same room over the three days. They also highlighted that a guest would have to take their treatments prior to their 11 am checkout, and could not do so between the hours of 11 am and 2 pm if they had booked consecutive "1 night relax" breaks.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand that hotel bookings belonged to a fluid pricing market, and would understand that the normal, or rack rate, prices promoted by hotels were often subject to reductions depending on promotional activity or seasonality, which meant prices could vary. We considered that consumers would recognise that the price quoted on the Champneys website for the "2 night spa break" was their standard rate, and did not necessarily represent the price at which the break was usually sold. Nevertheless, there remained an onus on Champneys to demonstrate that the price of £509 for a two-night break had been charged to consumers.
We understood that the standard price for Champneys' classic "2 night spa break", which included a particular package of three treatments, meals and access to the spa's facilities started from £509. Similarly, the price for a classic "3 night spa break", which included the same features, started at £609. We reviewed the invoices provided and considered that they demonstrated that customers had booked rooms for a "2 night spa break" at, or higher than, the rate of £509 over the preceding six months. Because Champneys provided evidence that the price of £509 for their "2 night spa break" was genuine and had been charged to consumers, we considered that to offer three nights for the price of two, at the price of £509 was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under 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. (Prices), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We understood that at the time the "3 nights for 2" offer was available, Champneys were also promoting a number of other offers including the "1 night relax" offer, which gave guests access to the spa's facilities and meals but no treatments, for £119 per night. We noted that both offers were presented on the "Latest offers" page of the website. While the site did not make any explicit claims regarding the fact that a particular package offered the best value, we considered that most consumers were likely to expect that £509 was the best price at which the combination of features advertised could be obtained, including when other concurrent offers were taken into account. We understood that the complainant believed she could purchase three consecutive nights at the "1 night relax" rate, plus the same treatments included in the "3 nights for 2" offer at £70. Therefore, she believed she could book a three-night break, with the same treatments, for a total of £427, which represented a saving of £82 in comparison with the "3 nights for 2" offer.
We understood, however, that while there was no restriction to prevent an individual from booking consecutive "1 night relax" breaks, they would need to check out of their room at 11 am each morning, and while they could remain on the premises, they would not have access to another room until 2 pm. In contrast, a guest booked in for the "3 nights for 2" offer would remain in the same room for their entire stay, and therefore could leave their possessions in the room and access it at any time during their break. Therefore, we considered that to book a three-night stay of consecutive "1 night relax" breaks and the relevant treatments was not identical to the "3 nights for 2" offer. Because of that, we concluded that the "3 nights for 2" offer was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under 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. (Prices), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
