Ad description

A Radio Times offer, seen on 18 June 2014, for a Zennox 76X700 Telescope stated "ONLY £69.99 PLUS £3.95 P&P (was £249.99)" and featured an image of the product with a roundel that stated "SAVE £180".  Small print stated "Your contract for supply of goods is with BVG Airflo".

Issue

The complainant, who did not believe the telescope had recently been sold at the 'was' price, challenged whether the 'was' price and associated savings claim were misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

BVG Airflo Group Ltd said that the product was frequently sold on their 'James Russell' website at the higher price of £249.99 and provided four sales receipts for the product.  These demonstrated that on 14 April, and 20, 24 and 27 May the product had been sold by them through their website for £249.99.  They also provided a report stating that the product had been listed on their system for £249.99 between 1 November 2013 and 10 June 2014 and gave details of how many had been sold.

BVG Airflo Group also provided sales reports for four of their other websites that showed the number of combined total sales of the item at £249.99 and at an offer price of £99.95. They stated that the item had been sold at full price across these sites from May to June.

Immediate Media Company London Ltd, who published the Radio Times, said that BVG Airflo Group ran the offer and had provided the copy.

Assessment

Not Upheld

The ASA  noted that the ad stated "ONLY £69.99 PLUS £3.95 P&P (was £249.99) ...  SAVE £180" and considered that consumers were likely to understand that to mean that £249.99 was the usual selling price for the product and the advertisers had reduced the price for the offer, meaning that consumers benefitted from a saving of £180.  We understood that the telescope in the ad was produced by BVG Airflo Group and distributed through a number of their brands. The system report for the primary website through which the product was sold stated that BVG Airflo Group had sold the product for £249.99 on a number of occasions between November and the start of the offer, and that the product had only ever been sold at this price through that channel.  We had also seen sales receipts from the months before the offer, further demonstrating recent sales of the product at £249.99.  We also noted that, although the other websites had offered the product at a lower price, the sales through these channels amounted to less than 10% of the sales from the primary site; the products had been sold at the price of £249.99 in the period immediately prior to the ad; and the sales figures for the offer price were lower than for the price of £249.99.  We considered that the evidence provided by BVG Airflo Group demonstrated that £249.99 was the normal selling price for the product and that it was a genuine retail price. We therefore concluded that the 'was' price and savings claim were not misleading.

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.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (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),  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) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.17     3.3     3.40     3.7    


More on