Ad description
A website, www.oakfurnitureland.co.uk, seen on 24 December 2017 featured text that stated "Gainsborough 4 Seater Sofa in Beige with Beige Scatters Was: £1099.25 [strikethrough price] Now: £899.25 …”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the product was normally sold at the lower price quoted in the ad, challenged whether the claim “£1099.25 [strikethrough price] Now: £899.25” was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
JB Global Ltd t/a Oak Furniture Land referred to various dates between September 2017 and 13 February 2018, specifying the retail prices for the product during that period of time. They also quoted the volume of sales recorded for each individual retail price.
They stated that from: 15 September 2017 to 21 November 2017 the sofa retailed at the discounted price of £854.25; 22 November 2017 to 24 November 2017 it retailed at £749.22; 25 November 2017 to 27 November 2017 it retailed at £854.25; 28 November 2017 to 21 December 2017 it retailed at £1,099.25; and 22 December 2017 to 12 February 2018 it retailed at £899.25. From 13 February 2018 onwards the sofa cost £1.099.25. They believed that this demonstrated that the sofa normally retailed at the quoted higher price of £1099.25.
Oak Furniture Land stated that the product was not normally sold at the sale price of £899.25, as it was previously offered at a discounted price of £854.25 prior to when it was offered at the higher price of £1099.25 in November/December 2017.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim “Gainsborough 4 Seater Sofa in Beige with Beige Scatters Was: £1099.25 [strikethrough price] Now: £899.25” to mean that the normal selling price for the sofa was £1099.25.
We referred to the pricing history Oak Furniture had referenced in their response to support the claim that the sofa was normally sold at the higher price quoted in the ad (£1099.25).
We considered that the pricing history had to demonstrate that the sofa retailed at the higher price of £1099.25 for a sufficient period of time before the complainant saw the ad (24 December 2017)
The pricing history showed that from 28 November 2017 to 21 December 2017 the sofa retailed at £1,099.25. However, we noted that from 15 September 2017 to 27 November 2017, the sofa retailed at discounted prices of £749.22 and £854.25 and then again at £899.25 from 22 December 2017 to 12 February 2018. Therefore, the sofa had retailed at discounted prices for a longer period of time than it had at the higher price of £1099.25.
Because of that, we considered that Oak Furniture Land had not provided adequate evidence to support the claim “£1099.25 [strikethrough price] Now: £899.25” and concluded that the higher price had not been substantiated and was misleading.
The claim 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), 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) and 3.40 (Price comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Oak Furniture Land to ensure that they held adequate evidence to substantiate their savings claims.
