Ad description
A claim on www.seventy-thirty.com, seen on 16 December 2014 stated, "We are the longest established exclusive luxury matchmaking company, the ultimate network of influential and exceptional single people".
Issue
Berkeley International Ltd, a competitor, challenged whether the claim was misleading and could be substantiated because they were established before Seventy Thirty.
Response
Seventy Thirty Ltd said it was established to provide a service that was completely different to anything else offered by matchmaking services at that time. They believed that, when they began trading as an exclusive matchmaking service, there was no service catering exclusively for high-calibre, high- and ultra high-net worth individuals. Their membership fees ranged from £10,000 to £60,000 plus VAT, and were required to be paid up front upon joining. They said the "exclusive luxury" market was about providing the highest level of comfort and pleasure, with exclusivity that went beyond just providing something which was not easily accessible.
Seventy Thirty provided details about the service they offered, including information about the qualifications of all their staff, the nature of lifestyle and financial checks carried out to assess potential members' suitability, the exclusive and luxury benefits offered to its members, how they identified suitable potential matches for their members and the amount and nature of direct contact their matchmakers had with their members. They believed, taken as a whole, their service was "exclusive luxury" and the claim was therefore not misleading in that respect.
Seventy Thirty identified eight companies which they considered operated in either the introduction agency or matchmaking services sector; the complainant was among those companies. In support of their view that those competitors did not offer an exclusive luxury matchmaking service, Seventy Thirty had relied on information obtained from those competitors’ marketing materials, websites, press releases and brochures as well as information taken from correspondence they had had with them previously.
Seventy Thirty explained that while they incorporated as a limited company in 2001 under the name Midnight Express (Holding) Ltd, the claim in the ad was based on the fact that when they began operating as an exclusive luxury matchmaking company, there were no other companies on the market offering the same service. They provided copies of signed members’ contracts on Seventy Thirty headed paper, dated 2001 and 2002, and provided a summary of the services available to members at the time they had joined. Additionally, they provided a number of invoices from a chauffeur company used by Seventy Thirty, which were dated October, November and December 2001.
Seventy Thirty noted that the eight competitors had incorporated after 2001 and said that they considered only one of those to be a true competitor, who had incorporated in 2009, which was some years after Seventy Thirty began to trade in its exclusive luxury matchmaking services capacity. That competitor was not the complainant.
With the exception of the complainant, Seventy Thirty provided the following information about their competitors in support of their claim. They said they had received confirmation from one of their competitors directly that that competitor had not traded/operated before 2005. They said another competitor’s website was not populated with content until 2010, after its corporation in December 2009, and a third competitor was incorporated in May 2010 and received press coverage in 2011. The company that Seventy Thirty believed to be their ‘true’ competitor, incorporated in 2009 but Seventy Thirty noted that that competitor was engaged in introductions, not matchmaking, and noted that the earliest available page of that competitor’s website made no reference to being “luxury”, “exclusive” or offering matchmaking services. They said that a fifth competitor confirmed to them that the company was established in 2011, at the time it was incorporated, and finally, the two remaining identified competitors considered and identified themselves to be new to the market.
Seventy Thirty believed that with the exception of the one competitor who they considered to be their ‘true’ competitor, none of the remaining seven companies could be seen as operating an exclusive luxury matchmaking service, for a number of reasons. In relation to fees, they understood that two competitors charged less than they did and they felt their competitors’ descriptions of members/clientele which included “sociable, attractive and interesting”, “dynamic, attractive and captivating”, and “attractive, dynamic and intelligent” did not convey ‘exclusive luxury’. They felt further descriptions of members by their competitors as “professionals” and “a diverse membership” did not allude to exclusivity, whereas they always described their members as “affluent, high net-worth and ultra high net-worth individuals”, terms which they felt projected a sense of exclusive luxury.
Seventy Thirty also provided an email from the trade body for introduction agencies, the Association of British Introduction Agencies (the ABIA), which they joined in 2006. The ABIA said it did not have any other members that currently operated at the same financial level as Seventy Thirty, and they were not aware of any other matchmaking services that had charged as much for membership as Seventy Thirty at the time they joined the ABIA. Given their belief that they began to trade in this capacity before the seven competitors referred to above and the ABIA's view about their services, Seventy Thirty believed their claim of being the longest established in the "exclusive luxury" end of the sector was justified.
With regard to the complainant, Seventy Thirty said it was their understanding that the first reference to ‘Berkeley International’ was in October 2003. They understood that Chase Cadogan Ltd was a head hunting company that had changed its name to Berkeley Sweetingham in 2003, the year in which the business it operated was acquired by Berkeley International. They provided a copy of an email dated 15 May 2015, in which the former Managing Director of Berkeley International described Berkeley Sweetingham as offering “…introduction services to the over 50’s [sic]” at the time Berkeley International bought it. As such, they disagreed with the view that the complainant had been engaged in the business of introductions or matchmaking before 2003.
Seventy Thirty understood that the previous owner of the business now trading under the name of Berkeley International had previously traded through a company which was dissolved in 1998. However, they understood that the previous owner incorporated a company in 2002, which changed its name at the time it was sold to the complainant. Additionally, they understood that the previous owner of complainant’s business did not trade as an introductions agency until 2009, which was the competitor who Seventy Thirty considered to be their ‘true’ competitor. Therefore, it was their understanding that the previous owner of the complainant’s business had not operated within the introductions sector from 1998. As such, they disagreed with the view expressed by the Berkeley International that its business had been established since 1998.
In response to the information the complainant had supplied to the ASA in support of their complaint, which Seventy Thirty had seen, they said they believed neither Berkley Sweetingham nor Berkeley International had been operating an exclusive luxury matchmaking service since 1998 or 2003 respectively. They said that nothing in the supporting documents provided by the complainant stated that either Berkeley Sweetingham or Berkeley International operated exclusive luxury matchmaking services companies; rather the materials described Berkeley Sweetingham as an introductory agency or “…a specialist company offering a bespoke service”. They believed the difference in fees charged by the complainant, at £5,000 compared to theirs of £10,000 to £50,000 plus VAT, also meant that the complainant did not offer an exclusive luxury service.
Seventy Thirty also said that the lack of reference to “exclusive/exclusivity” in the 2006 version of the complainant’s website also demonstrated that the service offered was not exclusive. Taking into account the above, they believed that neither Berkeley Sweetingham nor the complainant offered an exclusive luxury matchmaking service from 1998 or 2003 respectively and that the complainant had failed to demonstrate that that had been the case.
Assessment
THIS RULING REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 22 JULY 2015. THE VERDICT HAS CHANGED, MAKING THE COMPLAINT NOT UPHELD.
Not upheld
The ASA considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim “the longest established exclusive luxury matchmaking service” to mean that of all companies offering an exclusive luxury matchmaking service, Seventy Thirty had been operating the longest. We considered further, however, that consumers were unlikely to interpret the term “exclusive luxury” as a particularly defined sector of the market. While we acknowledged Seventy Thirty’s interpretation of the term “exclusive luxury”, we considered consumers were likely to interpret it more broadly to include services of an exclusive nature, and not just those specifically referring to themselves as “exclusive luxury”. Additionally, we considered consumers were likely to understand the claim as a comparison and therefore, we expected Seventy Thirty to also hold relevant comparative data in respect of the nature of the services which their competitors offered in support of the claim, as well as their length of operation.
We acknowledged the qualifications of the Seventy Thirty staff and the wide range of services which were included in the membership. We noted the membership fees and the financial and lifestyle checks Seventy Thirty had in place to assess potential members' suitability for the agency. We understood there was a minimum financial threshold which potential members had to meet and we considered that this helped to demonstrate the exclusive nature of Seventy Thirty's service. Seventy Thirty provided details of the luxury elements to their service which ranged, for example, from attendance at fundraising events which had been sponsored and attended by leading figures in the sports and fashion industry to luxury gifts and experiences which were available to their members. We considered that also helped to demonstrate the luxury element of their service.
We noted the email from the ABIA, which we considered further supported Seventy Thirty's claims about the "exclusive luxury" nature of the matchmaking service they offered. While we acknowledged it was not a requirement for dating agencies or matchmaking services to join the ABIA, we considered that a trade association was likely to have a good overall knowledge of the industry and be aware of any services similar to those who were already registered or interested in being so.
When taking into account all of the services provided by Seventy Thirty as part of their membership, we considered they were factors that their target consumers were likely to consider as being "exclusive luxury".
The eight competitors identified by Seventy Thirty all incorporated as limited companies after Seventy Thirty had done so in 2001. Although the current company name (Seventy Thirty Ltd) had been registered with Companies House since March 2005, and the company itself had been incorporated on 29 November 2001, we had seen evidence that showed Seventy Thirty had previously traded under that name operating as an exclusive luxury matchmaking capacity prior to its incorporation.
We noted the materials provided by the complainant included a brochure from 2003 under the name of Berkley Sweetingham (the name by which it was known at that time) in which it referred to itself as “…a distinctive company offering a specialist service…” which “… [did not] cater for the mass market…” and which “…work[ed] for an elite group of clients”. Further, in a letter dated 2003 to a potential client, Berkeley Sweetingham described itself as “…a specialist company offering a bespoke service…” and a company that “…act[ed] on your behalf by searching, interviewing and selecting the right people for you to consider…” When discussing how their service worked, the letter went on to state “We will then discuss these people with you in great detail, including their backgrounds, lifestyle and interests… Your identity is never revealed until you are ready…”
We considered consumers were likely to see a company and its service which were described as “distinctive”, “offering a bespoke service”, with an “elite group of clients”, as one which was exclusive, rather than one which could be accessed by the majority of consumers. We were therefore satisfied that we had seen documentary evidence to show that the service offered from 2003 by Berkeley Sweetingham (and latterly the complainant under the name of Berkeley International) was of a nature likely to be seen by consumers as being within the “exclusive” end of the sector and therefore relevant to the comparison made by Seventy Thirty.
We understood from the complainant that at the time they bought Berkeley Sweetingham in 2003, it was directed more towards over 50s and we considered the email from Berkeley International’s former Managing Director supported that. However, we understood further from the complainant that Berkeley Sweetingham, nevertheless, had a clientele of members under that age and that since the inception of the business the complainant now owned, it had been involved in the exclusive luxury end of the matchmaking service. While we recognised the business focused more on the over 50s, we considered the age of the clientele did not impact of the exclusive nature of the services offered by Berkeley Sweetingham at that time.
While the complainant had been able to demonstrate its credentials and that it had been operating in that sector since 2003, we had seen evidence to show Seventy Thirty had been trading in a luxury exclusive matchmaking capacity since the end of 2001. We therefore considered that we had seen evidence of a gap of two years during which Seventy Thirty had been trading prior to the complainant in 2003. Because of that, we considered Seventy Thirty had demonstrated that they had been trading before the complainant and the other competitors they had identified. We therefore concluded that the claim "the longest established exclusive luxury matchmaking company” was not misleading.
We investigated the claim under 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) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
