Ad description
The website for Victorian Plumbing www.victorianplumbing.co.uk seen on 23 June 2015, included pages about items which were on offer:
a. A page headed “Bathroom Suites Offers” listed various products which were on offer and under their current prices “RRP” prices were crossed out. For the “Sienna Cloakroom Suite” the current price was listed as £159.95 and underneath “RRP £299.95 Then £199.95” was crossed out.
b. The product page for the Sienna Cloakroom Suite stated “£159.95 SAVE 47%” and underneath “Normal Retail Price £299.95 Then £199.95” was crossed out.
Issue
Victoria Plum, who believed that the advertised product was exclusive to the advertiser, challenged whether the references to “RRP” and “Normal Retail price” and the savings claims on which they were based were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Victorian Plumbing Ltd said the Sienna Cloakroom Suite was not an item exclusive to them but was in fact sold by a range of other retailers. They used the terms “RRP” and “Normal Retailer Price” to communicate the recommended retail price of the item as defined by the manufacturer and used “Then” to communicate the price at which the item was normally sold on their website when it was not on offer. That was the price the product would return to after the offer period. They provided a screenshot from the manufacturer’s website which listed the price as £378. They also provided details of the product being sold by six other online retailers. They acknowledged those prices were lower than their own sale price but did not believe the difference was significant. They provided a customer invoice dated 1 September 2015 to demonstrate that the product had returned to the “Then” price after the offer period.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand references to RRPs to mean that the product was generally sold at the stated price by other retailers, and that they could make savings of the stated amount by shopping at that particular retailer. Because the product in question was sold by other retailers it was acceptable for Victorian Plumbing to refer to an RRP, provided it accurately reflected the price at which it was generally sold. We acknowledged that the manufacturer’s website quoted a price of £378. However, the product could not be purchased directly from them but had to be purchased via a retailer. Of the six retailers that Victorian Plumbing provided details of, all sold the product for less than the RRP of £299.95 quoted in ad (a) and the prices varied from £249.99 to £284.07. The mean average of those prices was £277.01 and we considered that difference would be of significance to consumers. It was also unclear whether Victorian Plumbing held that evidence at the time the ad was seen. We therefore considered that the RRP of £299.95 had not been substantiated. Ad (b) referred to “Normal Retail Price” and we considered that this did not make sufficiently clear whether the price was intended to refer to the RRP or to Victorian Plumbing’s usual price, which we considered was material information to consumers. We therefore considered that the reference to “Normal Retail Price” was misleading. We further considered that, in this context, the use of “Then” prices in ads (a) and (b) implied that the higher “RRP” and “Normal Retail Price” reflected a previous selling price by Victorian Plumbing, rather than the intended claim that they were the price at which the product was generally sold across the market. This was reinforced by the fact that the 47% saving quoted in the ads was calculated using the higher RRP price. We concluded that the references to “RRP” and “Normal Retail price” and associated savings claims were misleading.
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), 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 3.40 Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Victorian Plumbing Ltd not to repeat the claims “RRP £299.95 Then £199.95” and “Normal Retail Price £299.95 Then £199.95” in relation to the Sienna Cloakroom Suite. We also told them to ensure that they only used RRPs in their ads if they held evidence that they reflected the price at which the product was generally sold. We told them not to use “Normal Retail Price” when referring to RRPs, and not to use “Then” prices if they implied that the RRP was their own previous selling price.
