Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.

Ad description

Two website ads at www.prestigeflowers.co.uk for bouquets:

a. An ad for a medium-sized “Blue Lagoon” bouquet featured an image of the bouquet which showed statice, lily la white, Reagan chrysanthemums, white delianne, blue eryngium, white eustoma, Anastasia chrysanthemums, blue iris and roebelini palm leaves. A product description underneath stated it was comprised of “white Eustoma, lily la white, blue Eryngium, Statice and white delianne and Reagan chrysanthemums. The arrangement is framed with exotic roebelini palm leaf”.

b. An ad for an “Onyx” bouquet featured a large image of the bouquet, underneath which text included “(Medium bouquet shown) … With velvet grand prix roses, calla lilies and bouvardia the arrangement makes a clear statement”. To the right-hand side of the large image were three smaller images side by side labelled “standard”, “medium” and “large” respectively.

Issue

1. One complainant challenged whether the photograph of the bouquet in ad (a) was misleading, because he believed it did not accurately represent the product.

2. One complainant challenged whether the images showing the different size options in ad (b) were misleading, because they did not contain a different number of stems but appeared to be the same image enlarged.

Response

1. Prestige Gifting Ltd said the bouquet was arranged with white eustoma, lily la white, blue eryngium, statice, white delianne, Reagan chrysanthemums and roebelini palm leaf as shown in the product image and stated in the product description. They said that each product page included clear information that “Flowers & colour may vary due to seasonality and availability, but in these rare circumstances, flowers of equal or greater value will be used”, which was also reflected in the terms and conditions to which customers agreed prior to purchasing. They added that where substitutions were made they took care to provide flowers which maintained the overall effect of the bouquet.

Prestige Gifting said the bouquet received by the complainant comprised purple eustoma, lily la white, blue eryngium, statice, Anastasia chrysanthemums and Reagan chrysanthemums. They said that white eustoma had been substituted with purple eustoma, and white delianne with Anastasia chrysanthemums which were of greater value. They further commented that blue iris was substituted with purple eustoma, at a much greater cost. They said eustoma was multi-headed so would not have detracted from the bloom count. They considered those substitutions were minor and in line with their substitution policy. They believed the issue raised by the complainant was a customer services issue only, which did not relate to their advertising. They considered the image in the ad was representative of the product and said the product description conformed to what was shown in the bouquet.

2. Prestige Gifting said they were not sure what had misled the customer.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the ad included an image of the bouquet and a list of flowers in the product description. We considered consumers were likely to view the image as the primary source of information as to the composition of the bouquet, and would expect it to be an accurate representation of the bouquet they would receive. We considered the product description provided secondary information which consumers would expect to clarify the names of the flowers featured in the product image.

The image of the bouquet included blue irises and Anastasia chrysanthemums in addition to the six flowers and roebelini palm leaf listed in the product description. We therefore considered consumers who viewed the ad would expect to receive the irises and Anastasia chrysanthemums in addition to the other flowers shown in the image and listed in the product description. In particular, we noted that the blue iris, along with the blue statice, were the most prominent blue flowers in the “Blue Lagoon” bouquet and considered it likely that consumers such as the complainant, who had particularly sought out a bouquet with blue flowers, would make a choice to purchase the bouquet based on the prominence of those flowers. While we noted the ad referenced the substitutions policy and accepted that in some instances it might be necessary to substitute some flowers, we considered that consumers would expect, where a bouquet was advertised on the basis of its colour, that any substitutions would maintain the overall colour effect shown in the product image.

The bouquet received by the complainant did not include any blue iris and included one Anastasia chrysanthemum. During correspondence with the complainant, Prestige Gifting had initially referenced only those flowers which were listed in the product description, and we were therefore concerned that they had not taken account of the difference between the product image and product description, and what consumer expectations of the bouquet would be, based on the product image. Following prompting by the complainant, Prestige Gifting commented that Anastasia chrysanthemum was a substitution for white delianne. However, we considered it was not clear why Prestige Gifting had described the inclusion of the single Anastasia chrysanthemum in the complainant’s bouquet as a substitute for another flower when the product image showed two Anastasia chrysanthemums in the bouquet. We also noted the blue iris had been substituted by lilac eustoma and that as a result of the various substitutions the overall colour effect of the bouquet was purple rather than blue.

We considered the product image in the ad did not accurately represent the bouquet received by the complainant. Because we considered consumers would expect the product image to be an accurate representation of the bouquet they would receive, and we were concerned that Prestige Gifting had not provided an adequate account of why the bouquet received by the complainant differed considerably in its overall appearance from the product image, we concluded the ad misleadingly exaggerated the product.

On that point, 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  3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.  Exaggeration).

2. Upheld

We noted that under the heading “Select a size” the ad featured three images of the Onyx bouquet labelled “standard”, “medium” and “large”. The medium and large bouquets cost an additional £5 and £10 respectively. The complainant had been informed by Prestige Gifting’s customer service representatives that the size of the bouquet was determined by the number of stems included. However, we noted that the images did not include differing numbers of stems but instead the same image was used for all three bouquet sizes, except that they were progressively enlarged and the image for the medium bouquet was also flipped. It was therefore not clear which of the three bouquet sizes the image represented.

As referenced above, we considered consumers would expect product images to be an accurate representation of the bouquet they would receive. We also considered consumers would expect that the images would accurately represent the different bouquet sizes, for example by showing the differing numbers of stems in each bouquet, so that they could make an informed decision as to which size of bouquet they wished to purchase. We therefore considered that the use of the same image for each size of bouquet in the ad was likely to mislead consumers as to the content of the different sizes of bouquet.

On that point, 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  3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.  Exaggeration).

Action

Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in their current form. We told Prestige Gifting Ltd to ensure that images of bouquets were representative of the product, including that they accurately represented the content of the different size options.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.11    


More on