Ad description
A web page for a nursing chair featured a graphic indicating a star rating of 4.5/5. Beside this star rating, text stated "(963 Reviews) Read 963 Reviews Write a Review". Halfway down the page a review 'tab' was available, in which text stated "Average Customer Rating ... (4.5 out of 5) - based on 963 reviews and included the star rating graphic again. Below this, a selection of 15 four- or five-star customer reviews was available to read, with the option to read all reviews.
Issue
The complainant, whose negative review had not been published, challenged whether the product rating was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Kiddicare.com Ltd stated that all product reviews under two stars, which they classed as negative, were manually reviewed to ensure that any customer issues regarding product or service dissatisfaction were addressed, and to ensure that the reviews were helpful to other customers and contained no offensive language. They said that, at the time of their response, they had 34 reviews waiting for approval across their entire product range, with none being more than two days old.
Kiddicare stated that they then specifically looked at reviews for the product in question and determined that there were no outstanding reviews requiring approval. They said that the last one- or two-star review provided was submitted on 5 October 2013, and provided us with a screenshot from their moderating system showing five such reviews dating from between this date and 8 February 2013, two of which had been approved for publication. They stated that their system contained all negative reviews submitted for the product, regardless of whether or not they were approved for the live site, and that they could not be deleted from the system. Kiddicare also provided us with a screenshot of negative reviews for the product as seen on the live site. The two visible examples were dated 14 January 2008 and 5 February 2008.
Kiddicare said that they could find no evidence of the customer's review in their system, and stated their belief that they could demonstrate publication of both positive and negative reviews that would be helpful to customers.
Assessment
Not upheld
We noted that Kiddicare had a moderation policy in place to identify issues relating to customer service rather than products and to ensure that all reviews were helpful and not offensive. We also noted that, at the time of their response to us, no negative reviews pending moderation were more than two days old. We understood that all negative reviews, whether or not they were approved for the main site, were held on the moderation system and that Kiddicare reported the last of these had been submitted in October 2013, some time before the complaint was made. We therefore understood that the complainant's review had not appeared on the system at all, and so had not been moderated out. Although we acknowledged that the review the complainant had attempted to post had not been published, we were satisfied that this was not due to deliberate moderation.
Furthermore, we noted that Kiddicare had demonstrated that there were negative reviews for the product, albeit from some time ago. We also determined that other products on the site carried recent negative reviews, and noted that the screenshots from Kiddicare's moderation systems showed that negative reviews for other products were being approved for publication on the live site. We therefore considered that there was no evidence to suggest that Kiddicare were moderating out negative reviews for reasons other than customer service or suitability purposes, and we therefore did not consider that the star rating was misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading Advertising) and 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
