Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website and a Facebook Ad, seen in January and February 2018:
a. The website www.airsorted.co.uk, seen on 6 January 2018, featured a grid comparing services offered by Airsorted and Hostmaker. The comparisons included “Free 24hr check-in … Anytime [sic] of day or night”, “More flexibility … Adjust our pricing to your needs”, “Business ready travel compliant … Tap into the growing corporate travel market” and “Personal dedicated service … You get a client success manager who knows your home”. Against each of those categories, the grid stated “Yes” for Airsorted and “No” for Hostmaker.
b. The Facebook ad, seen on 20 February 2018, featured text which stated "Airsorted is the World's biggest Airbnb Management Company" and "We can help you earn around 300% more from your property". Further text stated "Airsorted - 1 bed in Whitechapel Made £3112 last month".
Issue
Hostmaker challenged whether:
1. the comparative claims in the grid in ad (a); and
2. the claims "World's biggest Airbnb Management Company" and "We can help you earn around 300% more from your property" in ad (b)
were misleading and could be substantiated.
3. Hostmaker also challenged whether the comparative claims in ad (a) were verifiable.
Response
Airsorted said that they would make changes to ad (a), but did not tell us what changes would be made or provide any substantive response to the complaint.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the comparative table in ad (a) that Airsorted offered a free 24-hour check-in and that Hostmaker did not. We also considered that the claim “More Flexibility - Adjust our pricing to your needs” would be understood by consumers to mean that the service offered by Hostmaker did not include a price adjustment based on a customer’s preferences.
We also understood that the table suggested Airsorted could ensure a customer’s Airbnb listing was compliant for business travellers, whereas Hostmaker could not.
We considered that consumers would also understand from the comparison that they would receive a more personal service with Airsorted than with Hostmaker with their own “Client success manager who knows your home”.
We noted that Airsorted had not provided any documentary evidence to substantiate the claims made within the table, such as demonstrating that Hostmaker did not offer a free 24-hour check-in to their customers. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point, ad (a) breached 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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would interpret the claim “World’s biggest Airbnb Management Company” to mean that Airsorted were the largest company in the world to offer the service of Airbnb management.
We also considered that consumers would interpret the claim “We can help you earn around 300% more from your property” to mean that Airsorted were able to earn their customers 300% more than any of their competitors.
We noted that Airsorted had not provided any documentary evidence to substantiate the claims made, such as data comparing the earnings with their competitors for the same or a similar Airbnb listing. Because of that, we concluded that both claims were misleading.
On this point, ad (b) breached 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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
3. Upheld
We considered that the claims made in both ads (a) and (b) would be understood as a comparison between the services offered by Airsorted and Hostmaker. The CAP Code required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of the product. Therefore, because the basis of the comparisons had not been verified we concluded that both ads breached the code.
On this point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Airsorted to ensure that future ads did not make claims by comparison with identifiable competitors, unless they held adequate evidence to substantiate and verify the claims.
