Ad description
A TV ad, for a travel price promotion for Euro Tunnel, showed a family (two adults and two children) and a dog at breakfast time. The voice-over stated, "Driving to France, take the fastest route with Euro Tunnel Le Shuttle". The next scene showed a man packing a car with luggage with a dog alongside him. The voice-over stated, "From £53 per car each way, for the car and the whole family." As the voice-over stated "… the whole family", the ad showed two children and a dog in the back seats of the car.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because there was an additional charge of £15 each way for dogs.
Response
Eurotunnel said they did not believe the ad was misleading. They stated that the ad had been aired 7,882 times and they had not been aware of any complaints during this period. Eurotunnel believed the on-screen text, which stated "pet supplement applies", made it clear that the fare did not include the cost of travel for a pet. Eurotunnel explained that they are the market leader for pet travel and that 65% of pets entering the UK used their service.
Clearcast said that the visuals of the dog in the ad were included to represent the example and availability of pet travel with Eurotunnel. They explained that the price given was not a fixed price, but rather a "from" price, which indicated that additional costs may be applicable. Clearcast pointed out that on-screen text, which stated "pet supplement applies", appeared throughout the ad.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted that the dog featured prominently in the ad and was shown alongside the family as they used the Eurotunnel to go on holiday. We acknowledged that the dog was presented alongside the two children in the family as the voice-over stated that the offer price was for "the whole family". We also accepted that consumers may affectionately refer to their dog as being part of the family. However, we considered that a consumer and pet owner would be likely to question whether a dog constituted part of the family, in the context of the cost of travel. We therefore considered that the qualification of a pet supplement was reasonable and expanded upon, rather than contradicted, the offer price for a family travelling on the Eurotunnel.
Furthermore, we acknowledged that the qualification was made sufficiently clear to consumers, because on-screen text throughout the duration of the ad stated "pet supplement applies". We considered that the pet supplement qualification did not contradict the offer of family travel and that this qualification was made sufficiently clear to consumers. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification), 3.18 3.18 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product or service depicted in the advertisement. and 3.24 3.24 Price claims such as "up to" and "from" must not exaggerate the availability or amount of benefits likely to be obtained by consumers. (Price) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
