Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for DIY Kitchens, www.diykitchens.com, seen on 4 August 2017, stated under the section “Kitchens”, “Faster fitting with fully constructed cabinets”, “Built to last longer than any other” and “Widest Choice available”. The section “Price and Quality Comparison” compared the price of DIY Kitchens against the prices of its competitors as well as the availability of features they offered against their competitors.
Issue
Wren Kitchens challenged whether:
1. the comparative claims “Faster fitting with fully constructed cabinets”, “Built to last longer than any other,” “Widest Choice available” and the pricing claims were misleading and could be substantiated; and,
2. the comparative claims were verifiable.
Response
1. Ultima Furniture Systems Ltd t/a DIY Kitchens said their units were rigid and therefore they were quicker to install than flat pack units. In respect of the “Built to last longer than any other” claim, they provided an ad they planned to use for their website that stated “Guaranteed to last 25 years- Our units are built to stand up to years of use in your home”. In respect of the “Widest Choice available” claim, they provided a stock spreadsheet that listed 945 kitchen unit codes and descriptions. DIY Kitchens said this list could be used to compare the amount of stock they had against the amount of stock their competitors had. They provided the price lists of two of their competitors.
DIY Kitchens said they had presented their competitors with a list of kitchen plans and asked them how much they charged for each of the plans. DIY Kitchens said the quotes they received were collated in 2015, apart from their quote from Wren which was collected in 2016.
2. DIY Kitchens said that the comparative claims could be verified by comparing the information on their websites with that available on their competitors’ websites.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the information under the “Price and Quality Comparison”, and the claims “Faster fitting with fully constructed cabinets”, “Built to last longer than any other”, “Widest Choice Available” to be comparative claims. We considered consumers would understand that on that basis that DIY Kitchens had a wider product range, were cheaper and had superior build quality compared to their listed competitors, and other companies who installed kitchens.
We noted that we had not seen comparative evidence for the claims “Faster fitting with fully constructed cabinets”, “Built to last longer than any other” and “Widest Choice available”.
We had only seen one example of price comparison evidence – a comparison between one kitchen unit sold by Wickes and a similar kitchen unit sold by DIY Kitchens. We were also provided with product price lists from two of DIY Kitchens’ competitors. However, we did not consider either to be sufficient as there was no indication that the price lists were based on up-to-date pricing information or how they were specifically related to the comparison in the ad.
We noted that the price comparisons in the ad had primarily been based on a price comparison assessments carried out in 2015 and 2016. We therefore considered that the amount of time that had passed since their last price comparison meant that it was not appropriate to rely on this evidence because it was very likely that their competitors’ prices would have changed.
Because we had not seen objective and recent comparative evidence in relation all relevant competitors across the market, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
On that 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 with identifiable competitors) and
3.39
3.39
Marketing communications that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear.
CAP has published a Help Note on Retailers' Price Comparisons and a Help Note on Lowest Price Claims and Price Promises.
(Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
We noted that the claims “Faster fitting with fully constructed cabinets”, “Built to last longer than any other” and “Widest Choice available” would be understood to be drawing a comparison with the products and services offered by other kitchen providers. While consumers might not be able to identify all competitors in this market, it was reasonable to assume that they will be able to identify some of them. We therefore considered that it was a comparison against identifiable competitors.
The CAP Code required that comparisons with identifiable competitors were verifiable. We considered that this meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct a consumer to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate, or ask someone suitably qualified to do so. We noted that there was no reference to any sources on which the claim was based and its relevance, such as which competitors had been included in the comparison. For those reasons we did not consider that the ad allowed consumers or competitors to verify the comparison and therefore concluded that the claims breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current forms. We told DIY Kitchens not to make comparative claims about the prices, quality, fitting times and their product range unless they held evidence to substantiate those claims. We also told them that, when making comparative claims with identifiable competitors, to ensure they provided information in their ads which verified the claims.
