Ad description

A TV ad and website for DFS promoted sale items:

a. The TV ad voice-over stated, “Bring in spring. All sofas in the new season collections at DFS are half price. The capsule collection yell sofa is now just £699, and available with 4 year's interest-free credit. DFS. Making every day more comfortable.” On-screen text stated “£699 was £1398”.

b. A product page on the website, www.dfs.co.uk, for the “Yell: Patch High wing Back Chair” stated “Half Price £498 Was £998 Save £500”. In the product information text stated “Previous price applied from 09/01/2015 to 16/03/2015”.

Issue

The complainant, who believed that the products had recently been sold for less than the ‘was’ prices quoted in the ads, challenged whether the savings claims in the ads were misleading.

Response

DFS Trading Ltd said that the sofa shown in ad (a) (the Yell Patch Maxi sofa) was on sale for £1398 between 12 January and 16 March 2015, a total of 64 days. It was then reduced to half price as part of their spring campaign between 17 March and 12 May 2015, a total of 56 days. Since that date it had been on sale for £799. The Yell Patch High Wing back chair featured in ad (b) was on sale for £998 between 12 January and 16 March 2015. It was then reduced to half price between 17 March and 12 May 2015. Since that date it had been on sale for £548. They provided dated screengrabs from their website covering each of the three price points for both products. They believed this was sufficient to demonstrate that the product was on sale at the ‘was’ prices during the period in question.

When asked by the ASA to substantiate the confirmation given to Clearcast that the full prices of £1398 and £998 respectively were genuine, DFS said that they were a ‘to order’ retailer, with examples of both their promotional and core ranges on display in store in room-sets. To provide their customers with information about what else is available to order in each of their ranges (including those not on display in that store) they provided multiple in-store kiosks where customers could access their website which gave details of all items in all ranges currently available to order at DFS. Each store also had physical range-books with details of all the products available to order. However, due to the size of their range it may be that any individual product might sell in relatively small quantities.

They said that both products had been available for purchase at the ‘was’ prices and were available at those prices for a sufficient period of time to be a genuine offer of sale. They said that prior to setting the higher price they had undertaken market testing which led them to conclude that they could be sold in reasonable numbers at those prices. They said that their hopes for sales were in fact disappointed, and it was this that led them to set lower prices than the ‘was’ prices after the promotional period ended.

Clearcast provided a copy of the relevant evidence that DFS had given them in support of the ‘was’ prices for the sofa in ad (a), which consisted of a document that listed the sale price and the ‘was’ price. It also included an assurance of compliance with the BIS guidance signed by the legal advisor to DFS.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand the price claims in the ads to mean that the ‘was’ prices quoted were the usual selling price for the products at the time of the promotion, and that DFS had reduced the prices for the promotional period, meaning that consumers benefitted from a genuine saving of £699 (the sofa) and £500 (the chair). The screenshots provided by DFS demonstrated both products were available for purchase at the ‘was’ prices quoted in the ads during the period 12 January to 16 March 2015. However, we considered that DFS also needed to demonstrate that the prices charged during that period were genuine retail prices. Such an assessment included whether or not DFS had a reasonable expectation that they could sell significant quantities of the products at those prices. We had not been provided with any sales data or invoices for either product to show that DFS had sold any units of either product at the ‘was’ prices, nor had we seen other evidence to demonstrate that such an expectation was reasonable. We had not seen price or sales volume data for the period prior to the higher price being charged from 12 January. We also noted that the assurance supplied to Clearcast was dated 10 March, which was seven days before the sale commenced and at which point DFS would have been aware that they had not sold either product at the higher price during the preceding 58 days. For those reasons we concluded that DFS had not substantiated that the ‘was’ prices were genuine retail prices for the products and that the savings claims in the ads were therefore misleading.

Ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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  3.18 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.  (Prices) and ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition12) rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.   (Prices).

Action

The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told DFS Trading Ltd that when making savings claims they should ensure that ‘was’ prices reflected genuine retail prices, and that they held evidence to demonstrate that was the case.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.18     3.9    

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.17     3.7    


More on