Superdrug Stores plc 118 Beddington Lane Croydon Surrey CR0 4TB Number of complaints: 1

Date: 23 July 2008 Media: National press Sector: Retail

Ad
Two national press ads for Superdrug.

a. The first ad was headlined "Can you trust Boots on price?". Text underneath stated "We compared the prices of 1,048 everyday health and beauty products ... 960 cheaper at Superdrug  84 the same price  4 cheaper at Boots ...". Small print at the bottom stated "Prices were checked by an independent agency in 3 Boots branches, Birmingham, Coventry and Leamington Spa between 7th - 9th January 2008."

b. The second ad was headlined "Think Boots is expensive? ... so do we!". The rest of the ad was identical to ad (a).

Issue
Boots UK Ltd, who had undertaken their own price comparison with different results, challenged:

1. whether the claim "960 cheaper at Superdrug  84 the same price  4 cheaper at Boots ..." could be substantiated;

2. the basis for the claim "everyday health and beauty products"; and

3. whether the comparison was based on the most up-to-date data.

The CAP Code:

3.1;7.1;18.1;18.2;18.3

Response
1. Superdrug Stores (Superdrug) asserted that the claim in the ad could be substantiated by data collated by an independent agency, Compability. They said Compability had collated price comparison data on their behalf from other retailers on a core group of products.  They sent a spreadsheet of prices for the 1048 products referred to in the ad, which they believed substantiated their claim. Superdrug said they had not used any promotional prices in their comparison. They said Compability had taken the prices from the shelf edge but they did not have documentary evidence of those prices or copies of receipts; Superdrug said they were, however, confident that the prices taken by Compability were correct.

2. Superdrug said a core group of some of their best selling products were used in the price comparison survey.  They said all of the products were widely available in other health and beauty retailers and that was the basis for their claim "everyday health and beauty products".

3.   Superdrug said the price comparison data referred to in the ads was the most recent data available to them and had been collated by their agency between 7 and 9 January.

Assessment
The ASA understood from Boots that they believed Superdrug had used the wrong price for 54 of the 960 products for which they had stated Superdrug were cheaper. We also understood from Boots that some of the items in the comparison used by Superdrug were being offered by Boots at a promotional price between 7 and 9 January, whereas Superdrug had used the standard price in their comparison.  Boots also believed a further 152 of the 960 products Superdrug claimed were cheaper in their stores could not be described as 'everyday health and beauty products': those products included 58 premium cosmetic lines, 10 electrical beauty lines and 5 fragrance lines, all of which they argued were not an everyday purchase, and 13 film and battery products, 51 snack food lines and two magazine lines, all of which they argued were neither health nor beauty products. Boots also asserted that their own list of 'everyday health and beauty products', which they compared with Superdrug every week, contained 974 health and beauty lines for 7 to 9 January 2008 of which only 175 appeared on Superdrug's list.  Boots believed the list of products used to compare prices had been carefully selected by Superdrug in order to be able to make the best claim possible, rather than creating a list representing true 'everyday health and beauty' products.

1. Upheld
We noted the comparative evidence sent by Superdrug; we also noted that evidence did not include documentary evidence of the prices or copies of receipts. We noted that, of the 54 products that Boots believed Superdrug had priced incorrectly, nine were on promotion in Boots between 7 and 9 January and three had actually been priced correctly by Superdrug. Of the remaining 42 incorrectly priced items, 16 were cheaper at Boots and 26 were the same price at Superdrug. Because they were unable to verify the prices on which the comparison was made, we concluded that Superdrug had not substantiated the claim "960 cheaper at Superdrug  84 the same price  4 cheaper at Boots  ...".

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

2. Upheld
We noted Superdrug's comments that they had based the claim 'everyday health and beauty' on a core group of some of their best selling products which they believed were widely available in other health and beauty retailers. We understood the products might all be sold in both Boots and Superdrug stores, but considered that readers were likely to interpret the claim "We compared the prices of 1,048 everyday health and beauty products" to mean that the products were all related to health and beauty and were likely to be those bought on a regular basis. We considered that a number of the products Superdrug had used in the comparison, such as snack food lines, film and battery products and magazines, were not 'health and beauty' products, and that some products, such as electrical beauty products and fragrances were unlikely to be viewed as 'everyday' products. Because Superdrug had not provided a rationale for their selection of 'everyday health and beauty products' to compare with Boots  and because some products included in the comparison were unlikely to be considered as everyday health or beauty products by consumers, we concluded that the comparison was misleading.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.2 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

3. Upheld
We noted ad (a) appeared in the national press on 31 January and ad (b) appeared on 7 February; we also noted the prices were checked from 7 to 9 January. We understood prices in the retail sector often changed from week to week and that prices checked three to four weeks beforehand could already be out of date. We considered that, given the three week gap for ad (a) and four week gap for ad (b) between the prices being checked and the ads appearing, and the relative speed with which prices in the retail sector changed, the comparison was misleading because it was not based on the most up-to-date data.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

Action
We told Superdrug to ensure their price comparisons were accurate, fair and up-to-date in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)