Ad description
A TV ad for SCS, seen in December 2017 and January 2018, featured a number of different sofas with accompanying savings claims. A voice-over stated, "Final chance for early bird savings in our biggest ever double discount sale at SCS. With huge double discounts for early birds. This sofa's only £299. Early bird double discounts like this one, £379. But not for long. Double discounts on carpets and SCS will pay for your fitting. Plus, everything's free 'til 2019 with four year's free credit. Hurry, early bird offers like this £499 sofa must end soon at SCS."
Issue
Two complainants, who understood that a delivery charge applied to all orders, challenged whether the ad was misleading.
Response
A Share & Sons Ltd t/a ScS stated that their delivery charges were not compulsory. If the customer paid by cash, cheque or credit card, they were free to collect their purchase rather than have it delivered. Customers would normally collect from a distribution centre rather than a store, but if it was essential a store collection could be arranged, and the customer would not incur an additional charge. They said that over 95% of customer orders were placed in store, which they believed indicated that most customers would be able to access a store to collect an item themselves. Approximately 85% of upholstery customers and 75% of flooring customers chose to pay for a home delivery.
If a customer chose to pay via a finance agreement, ScS were required by the finance houses that provided the agreements to deliver over the threshold. Therefore, in those circumstances they were unable to offer a collection to the customer.
ScS said that both their in-store terms and their website stated that their delivery prices were for deliveries within a 30-mile radius of the nearest store or distribution centre. Outside of that, they provided a quote for delivery.
Clearcast said that at the time of clearing the ad, they understood from ScS that customers collecting their purchase from a store or distribution centre were not charged for delivery. They now understood that collection was not an option for customers who opted to pay on finance. However, they stated that finance was an ancillary product and the customer had a choice on payment terms, therefore they believed that the delivery charge was still optional. Clearcast stated that the website made clear that additional costs may be incurred outside a 30-mile radius, but did not state what those charges would be. They assumed this would depend on the distance that the customer would like the purchase delivered to.
Assessment
Upheld
The BCAP Code stated that ads that state prices must also state applicable delivery, freight or postal charges or, if those cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, state that such charges are applicable. The ASA noted that the ad quoted prices for a number of different items, but did not make any reference to delivery charges. We noted that some other furniture retailers offered free delivery, while some always charged to deliver to customers’ homes. We considered that viewers would understand from the ad that they would not have to pay any additional charges to have an item delivered.
We understood from ScS that customers who paid for their purchases in full had the option to collect their order from a store or distribution centre, and that they would not be charged a delivery charge if they did so. We noted that customers could choose how they paid for their purchase. We also noted ScS’ assertion that their records of how orders were placed indicated that 95% of customers were able to access a store. However, we considered that when buying large items such as furniture, there were other factors, such as the availability or size of a vehicle to transport the item in, that could discourage consumers from collecting it themselves. We noted that 15% of upholstery customers and 25% of flooring customers opted not to pay for home delivery. While we accepted that the charge was optional, given that it would still apply to most customers in practice, we considered that the fact that consumers would be charged for home delivery should be made clear to viewers within the ad.
Information about delivery charges was provided on the ScS website. We noted that there were standard delivery charges for different types of items. If a customer lived outside the 30 mile radius of a store or distribution centre, they would incur a higher delivery fee, which would be communicated to them before they confirmed their order. We understood that the exact fee charged would depend on the customer’s delivery address, and therefore it could not be calculated in advance. However, we considered that the ad should include a statement making clear that delivery fees applied, and varied depending on location. Because that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2).
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
and
3.3.4
3.3.4
delivery charges
(Misleading advertising),
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification),
3.18
3.18
Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product or service depicted in the advertisement.
and
3.22
3.22
Advertisements that state prices must also state applicable delivery, freight or postal charges or, if those cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, state that such charges are payable.
(Prices).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told A Share & Sons Ltd t/a ScS to ensure their ads made clear that consumers would be charged for home delivery, and that the fee varied according to location.
