Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
Claims on www.expedia.co.uk, promoted hotel reviews and bookings. The web page for "Kingsway Hotel" showed a review score of 3 ½ stars out of 5. Text stated "Good! 82% of guests recommend. 3.9 out of 5 Expedia Guest Rating. Based on 11 verified reviews". Under the room information for a "Double Room, Ensuite", text stated "The private bathroom has complimentary toiletries". Under the tab "Guest Reviews", text stated "3.9 OUT OF 5. 82% of guests recommend. Room cleanliness 4.7; Service and staff 4.0; Room comfort 4.2; Hotel condition 4.7" and "VERIFIED REVIEWS. They paid and stayed. We double-checked". User-generated reviews were listed below, including one by "Ruth from Devon".
Issue
The Kingsway Hotel challenged whether the:
1. claim "The private bathroom has complimentary toiletries" was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. claim "VERIFIED REVIEWS. They paid and stayed. We double-checked" was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. review by "Ruth from Devon" was genuine because they maintained they had never had a guest by that name; and
4. Expedia Guest Rating claim and the claim "82% of guests recommend" were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Expedia.com Ltd (Expedia) stated that the information on their site reflected the hotel's own website which stated "Each of our rooms has many refinements including ... complimentary toiletries" in relation to Double En-suite, Twin En-Suite, Double En-Suite - Single and Twin En-suite - Single rooms, and stated that the rooms had an en-suite bathroom. They provided a screen shot of the website taken on 31 October 2013.
2. They stated that Expedia-verified reviews could only be submitted by a customer who had made a booking on an Expedia group website and had completed that booking. They stated a customer who had made a booking on an Expedia group website (including Expedia.co.uk) was issued with an itinerary number and once the customer had completed the booking and stayed in the hotel they were sent a review e-mail which asked them to rate the hotel. The user could submit a review of the hotel only by returning the e-mail, which was checked against the itinerary number. The review would then appear on the site, subject to it not containing inappropriate or offensive content, as determined by Expedia. They stated that a hotel could not be reviewed directly via the site. They provided a review submission in support of the claim.
3. They said that the verification that took place in relation to a booking was not by user name but by the customer's contact e-mail checked with the itinerary number. They stated they had investigated the review in question and confirmed it was a verified review. They provided further detail and the review submission as completed by the customer.
4. They stated that the overall rating (out of 5) given to the hotel was an average of the ratings from all submitted reviews. They stated that, at the time they were made aware of the complaint, there were 11 reviews (two of which included a rating only and no review) and the average of the 11 reviews was 3.9, which was the rating for the hotel shown on the website. They stated that, of the 11 reviews on the site, two were 'not recommended' and nine were 'recommended' so the percentage recommended was 82%.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that claims on www.kingswayhotelminehead.co.uk the Kingsway Hotel's own website, stated that each of their rooms had "complimentary toiletries" and an en-suite bathroom. We therefore considered that it was reasonable for Expedia to state that the Kingsway Hotel offered "complimentary toiletries" and considered that the claim was unlikely to mislead.
On that point, 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. 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), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted that reviews on Expedia could be submitted only by guests who had booked and paid to stay in the hotel under review, based on an individual booking itinerary number and e-mail address and that they had provided evidence showing that the review about the Kingsway Hotel had been left by a customer who had booked to stay at the hotel. We noted that Expedia also carried out a further review before it was published to ensure that they did not deem the content of a review inappropriate or offensive. Because we understood that reviews could only be left by former guests of a hotel, and because they were also moderated by Expedia before publication, we concluded that the claim "VERIFIED REVIEWS. They paid and stayed. We double-checked" was not misleading.
On that point, 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.
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) 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), but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted that, as set out under point 2, reviews could only be left by customers who had booked and paid to stay in the hotel under review. We noted that some reviews were left by users who had inputted a particular name, whilst others were attributed to "a verified traveller". Although we accepted that the user name "Ruth from Devon" was a pseudonym and considered it might be desirable to make that clear, in light of the evidence provided by Expedia, we considered that the review itself had been made by a former guest of the hotel, and therefore concluded that it was a genuine review, which represented the view of a genuine guest at the hotel, and was therefore unlikely to mislead.
On that point, 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.
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) 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), but did not find it in breach.
4. Not upheld
We noted that the site listed each review in full, including the rating that each reviewer had attributed to the hotel and whether or not they had recommended the hotel. We noted that the site also included ratings-only reviews, where the reviewer had not left a specific comment, but had simply given the hotel a rating out of 5 and stated "Recommended" or "not recommended". We understood that the average rating and that the percentage of guests who recommended the hotel were based on all reviews and ratings inputted, whether accompanied by a comment or ratings-only. We considered that the ratings and recommendation would be understood as an expression of each guest's opinion of their stay at the hotel and that consumers would understand that the rating was an average of the ratings that had been left by reviewers, and the percentage of guests who recommended the hotel was determined by the proportion of "Recommended" to "Not recommended" reviews. We noted that, as set out under point 2, reviews could only be left by consumers who had booked and paid to stay in the hotel under review. Because we noted that the ratings and recommendations were left by genuine guests at the hotel, we concluded that they were not misleading.
On that point, 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.
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) 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
