Ad description
A TV ad for Iceland Foods Ltd seen between 7 March and 16 March 2016. The ad featured a woman opening her front door to a delivery driver holding a crate containing Iceland bags. The driver told her he had her online order and the woman responded, “Oh great, can you pop it in the kitchen?” The man was shown carrying the bags into the house and is followed by several individuals carrying boxes of fresh produce into the house. The voice-over referred to the contents of each box.
Issue
Six complainants, who understood that Iceland policy prevented delivery drivers from entering a customer's property, challenged whether the ad was misleading.
Response
Iceland Foods Ltd said that they did not consider the ad to be misleading. They explained that it was their general policy to deliver a customer’s shopping to their front door. Due to previous incidents that had resulted in harm to their drivers, they generally provided this ‘to the doorstep’ service for their safety and for business efficiency purposes. However, while drivers were not obliged to enter customers’ properties with deliveries as a matter of course, they were given discretion to decide whether or not to do so when asked, given the potential safety issues and other risks. Where a customer genuinely required assistance, and it was as safe and possible for them to enter a property, they were encouraged to do so.
They said that, since the ad first appeared, they had updated their delivery terms and conditions and the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ on their website to reflect this approach and it was clear that, in general, shopping would be delivered to the door step. They understood this to be a common approach that was adopted by the majority of retailers.
They said that the ad showed the delivery driver entering the customer’s property for illustrative purposes and to give dramatic effect to the ad, highlighting the food range available by showing a fishmonger, farmer, baker, ice cream man and a chef delivering various goods. They stated that the driver only entered the property following a customer request, which was in line with their general delivery policy.
Clearcast said that Iceland’s response made it clear that they do not have a policy that prevents delivery drivers from entering a customer’s property. They said that although the delivery is ‘to your door’, Iceland did not tell drivers to go no further than the doorstep and refuse to enter a customer’s property. They said that where a customer asked for a delivery to be taken into the house, drivers were encouraged to help if they are able to do so. However it was left to their discretion, as forcing drivers to enter all customers’ property in any circumstance had been shown to put those drivers at risk. They stated that they did not feel that the ad was likely to mislead viewers as to the nature of the Iceland delivery service.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged that some of the complainants had experienced instances where their Iceland delivery driver did not enter their property when delivering goods and that they felt that the ad, by showing goods being delivered into the consumer’s home, was therefore misleading. We noted that the ad showed a driver being asked to enter a property and then numerous items being carried into the home by a series of people. However, we did not consider that this would be regarded by viewers in general as an indication that delivered goods would be taken into customers’ property in every instance.
We understood that, although Iceland had a general ‘to your door’ delivery policy, their drivers could bring deliveries into a consumer’s property, as they were given discretion to enter a property where they were requested to do so, taking into consideration potential safety risks and limitations. We noted that this is what the delivery driver in the ad was shown to do and, given that there was no claim that they would enter in every instance, considered that the depiction of the driver, if not that of the other tradespeople, accurately reflected the advertiser’s policy and practices. We concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
