Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
The home page of a website for BlindsUK.net, www.blindsuk.net, seen in October 2016, featured the claims “10 Years Online Served over 400k customers + 2 million windows over 2 mil windows covered!” and “UK’s largest store of customer made curtains online”. The bottom of the home page featured logos for House Beautiful, Ideal Home, The Telegraph and ITV.
Issue
The complainant, who understood the advertiser had been trading since June 2016, challenged whether the claims:
1. “10 Years Online Served over 400k customers + 2 million windows over 2 mil windows covered!”; and
2. “UK’s largest store of customer made curtains online” were misleading and could be substantiated.
3. The complainant also challenged whether the advertiser had been endorsed by House Beautiful, Ideal Home, The Telegraph and ITV.
Response
1. BlindsUK.net did not provide a response to this issue.
2. BlindsUK.net stated that they had 5000 products on their website and compared their product volumes with three other online blind retailers. They said that they offered more products and variety than their competitors.
3. BlindsUK.net stated that the Telegraph had featured them in product recommendations and competitions. They provided a link to the Telegraph website which featured a competition to win £500 worth of vouchers for BlindsUK.net. They also stated that their products had been featured on the ITV programme 60 Minute Makeover. They also provided a link to the Ideal Home website which included an image of a renovated room which featured blinds from BlindsUK.net.
Assessment
1.Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “10 Years Online Served over 400k customers + 2 million windows over 2 mil windows covered!” to mean that they had been trading online for 10 years and, during that time, had served over 400,000 customers from their website and had provided coverings for over 2 million windows. We noted that the advertiser did not provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim; therefore we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 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).
2. Upheld
We considered that in the absence of any qualification, consumers would understand that claim “UK’s largest store of customer made curtains online” to mean that BlindsUK.net had the largest quantity and variety of made-to-order blinds in the UK in their online store and had the largest market share compared with other online blind retailers in the UK. We acknowledged that BlindsUK.net had compared their product volumes with three of their competitors based on the number of products stocked on their websites. However, we understood that they had not included all online blind retailers in the UK as part of their comparison and did not provide any evidence of their market share. For those reasons we considered that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the ad 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).
3. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the inclusion of the House Beautiful, Ideal Home, The Telegraph and ITV logos on their website implied that BlindsUK.net had been recommended by those brands. We acknowledged that the advertiser had been featured in the Telegraph and had their products featured on the Ideal Homes website. We considered that by featuring the advertiser's products in their publications did not mean that they had been officially endorsed or recommended by those brands and we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that their products were specifically referenced during the ITV 60 Minute Makeover programme. Therefore we considered that the use of their logos on their website was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 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).
Action
The claims must not appear in their current form. We told BlindsUK.net to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence to support their claims and not to imply that they were endorsed by a company if that was not the case.
