ASA Adjudications

Lidl UK GmbH
19 Worple Road
Wimbledon
London
SW19 4JS
Number of complaints: 1
Date:9 May 2007
Media:National press
Sector:Retail

Ad
A national press ad, for Lidl stores, was headed "CHEAPER! KEEP YOUR MOTOR RUNNING! From Monday 30th October". A number of car accessories were pictured with the Lidl price and text that stated "xx% CHEAPER compared to Halfords".  Below the pictured item, text stated "Similar item - xxx £xx, purchased at Halfords in New Malden on 3rd October 2006".  
Issue
Halfords Group (Halfords) complained that the ad used misleading comparisons.  They believed that:

1. the hydraulic car jack was not compared to the closest similar Halfords' model, and the percentage saving claim was therefore wrong;

2.  the car seat covers were not compared to the nearest Halfords' equivalent and

3. the prices, used for comparison, for Halfords' windscreen cover and their car protective cover were wrong.


The CAP Code: 7.1;18.1;18.2;18.3

Response
Lidl UK (Lidl) said their team of buyers took time and care in choosing the most relevant competitor products to ensure fairness when making price comparisons.  They said the ad would not be used again, but if they were to re-advertise any of the same products they would carry out a full price comparison exercise again.

1. Lidl said, although the Halfords hydraulic car jack included a blow mould carry case, it was the performance of the product that mattered.  They believed the dimensions of the wheelbase and wheels were comparable and the lifting capacities of the two jacks were identical. They believed the comparison was fair.

2. Lidl said that the car seat covers were compared to the cheapest on sale at Halfords. They said both sets of covers were made from the same material and there was no evidence that those sold by Halfords were harder wearing than those sold at Lidl.  They believed the comparison was fair.

3. Lidl said the prices of Halfords' windscreen and car protective covers were checked prior to the ad going to print, which was three and a half weeks before publication.  They said the prices were correct at the time, although during the intervening period, Halfords had reduced the cost of the items. Lidl said it was clear from the ad that the prices were correct at the time of going to print because it included the date of comparison. They said there was no intention to make a false claim.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that the dimensions and capabilities of the hydraulic car jacks were comparable, but noted that the Halfords car jack was supplied with a carry case.  We considered this was an additional feature that was likely to influence consumers when making their choice.  We concluded that the carry case was a significant difference between the two products and therefore the comparison was unfair.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons).

2.  Not upheld
We noted both seat covers were made of the same fabric; one a close woven nylon and the other open-weave.  Although we understood this gave a different look and feel to the covers, we considered that they were sufficiently similar in all other respects to be used as a fair comparison.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons) but did not find it in breach

3. Upheld
We noted the date of the price comparison was some 25 days before the ad appeared in the press.  We understood that 19 days before the ad was published, Halfords had lowered the price of their car and windscreen covers.  Although we acknowledged the preparation time involved in an advertising campaign, we nonetheless considered that the price comparison figures should have been checked again before the ad went to press.  We did not consider that the inclusion of the date of the original price comparison in the ad negated Lidl's responsibility to present an accurate up-to-date comparison.   We considered that, at the time the ad appeared, it was misleading, because the price comparison for the windscreen and car covers was based on out-of-date evidence.  

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons).
Action
We told Lidl to ensure comparisons in future ads were accurate and up-to-date.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

back | top