Ad description
Search results for a hotel on the website www.lastminute.com included the claims “save 38% Total stay £190.00 £118.50”; “£190.00” was struck out. Text continued “Based on Standard Non-Smoking Double Room Only”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood £190 was the cost of a superior room, challenged whether the savings claims for the standard room were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
LMnext UK Ltd t/a lastminute.com said hotels provided them with their own price for the relevant room-type for the day in question as well as their ‘top secret’ rate, which was the type of offer shown in the search results. They provided details of the top secret product and a link to the hotel’s own website. They said the search results did not claim to offer a discount on a superior room.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA acknowledged the ad claimed that a discount was available on a stay in a standard, rather than superior, room. We considered it was likely to be understood by consumers to mean that a 38% saving was available on the usual selling price of £190, for a standard room on the relevant dates. We understood from information submitted by the complainant that £190 was in fact the price of a stay in a superior room, when booked via lastminute.com or the hotel’s own website, but that standard rooms were a separate category. We understood the usual price of a standard room for the stay was likely to be lower than £190 and that the saving available was therefore also likely to be smaller than was stated. In any case, lastminute.com did not provide any evidence to support the savings claim. Because we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that £190 was the usual price for a standard room, and that consumers could therefore save 38% as stated, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
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 its current form. We told lastminute.com to ensure their future savings claims did not mislead about the benefit available.
