Ad description
A Facebook page for a company, Essex Pamper Parties, specialising in children’s parties featured two posts that featured customer testimonials:
a. The testimonial in the first post stated, “Natasha Lovell reviewed Essex Pamper Parties in Chigwell, Loughton, Epping and Woodford - 5* 6 November 2014 My daughter was so excited about her party and she is still talking about it to all her friends. Can’t thank the ladies enough for the amount of time and effort they put into to talking to the girls and making my daughter feel special whilst us mothers could relax. Many Thanks. Will be booking her sister’s party soon”,
b. The testimonial in the second post stated, “Natasha Lovell reviewed Essex Pamper Parties in Southend and Billericay - 5* November 6, 2014 at 4.32pm As you know I had no choice but to book ha ha, as Ella wouldn’t stop on about an Essex pamper party she’d been to, I can see why and just wanted to say a big thanks! This business comes highly recommended”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the reviews were genuine, because they understood that they had been written by the owner of the company.
Response
Essex Pamper Parties stated that the testimonials were posted by them on behalf of two customers, who had given feedback via email on the service they had received. Essex Pamper Parties provided copies of those emails, which they believed, were sufficient to demonstrate that they were genuine.
In response to our enquiries, Essex Pamper Parties stated that they had amended the posts and identified the name of the customers who had given the testimonials.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that the testimonials were posted by Essex Pamper Parties on behalf of two customers who had emailed their feedback on the service they had received. The CAP Code required that marketers must hold documentary evidence that testimonials were genuine and hold contact details for the persons who gave them. The email copies Essex Pamper Parties provided included the customers' email addresses, one of which was an unverifiable web based address while the other appeared to be a company email address. However, neither email contained any further contact details for the customers, such as a home or business address and we were not provided with any additional information, such as the customers' ordering history, that showed that the testimonials were genuine.
Therefore, because we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the testimonials were genuine, we concluded that the posts 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) and 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Essex Pamper Parties to ensure that they held evidence that their testimonials were genuine.
