Ad description
A mailing, dated 18 January 2016, from OfficeMax Australia Ltd, an office supply company, stated “Best Offers For Office Supplies. Office Supplies Offer”. It was laid out like an invoice, with the recipient company’s name, address, a named contact and a reference number in the top left-hand corner. It included the headings “description”, “quantity” and “amount” above a “total payable” sum in euros. Bank details for payment were included beneath this, alongside text stating, “Please make your payment within 14 days to our company Processor Euro Payment Services”. Small print stated, “This is a solicitation for the order of goods, services or both and not a bill, invoice or statement of account due. You are under no obligation to make any payments on account of this offer unless you accept this offer. If you choose to pay this offer the product will be available to download using the link above. Offer valid for 14 days. Should you not wish to accept this offer you do not need to notify us but simply disregard this offer”.
Issue
The complainant, who upon receipt had initially believed it was an invoice, challenged whether the ad was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
Response
OfficeMax Australia Ltd did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by OfficeMax Australia Ltd’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
We noted that the mailing followed a format and included features typically found on invoices, such as a reference number, a breakdown of costs for specific products, payment due date and bank details. Although there was text stating that the mailing was a marketing communication, and not a statement of accounts due, it was extremely small relative to the rest of the information in the document and therefore likely to be overlooked by consumers. Because of the overall impression of the ad and the inclusion of specific payment details, and because the explanation that it was not a demand for payment was not displayed prominently enough, we considered that the mailing was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. We therefore concluded that it was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
2.1
2.1
Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such.
(Recognition of marketing communications),
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising)
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told OfficeMax Australia Ltd to ensure that their marketing communications were identifiable as such. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.
