Background

Summary of Council decision:

Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.

Ad description

A website for working holidays, www.aceworkingholidays.com, seen on 23 September 2018. Text on:

a. one page stated "Ace Working Holidays have been helping 1st year workers with jobs and accommodation for over 7 summer seasons. Offering workers packages in Magaluf, Ibiza, Zante, Kavos, Ayia Napa and Malia";

b. a second page stated "Ace Working Holidays is the only workers' company based in the UK at our regional office and in our main resort office in the heart of Magaluf";

c. a third page stated "We have over 120 exclusive contracts with bars, clubs, restaurants, and event companies to provide them with seasonal staff next summer".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. "Ace Working Holidays have been helping 1st year workers with jobs and accommodation for over 7 summer seasons. Offering workers packages in Magaluf, Ibiza, Zante, Kavos, Ayia Napa and Malia".

2. “Ace Working Holidays is the only workers' company based in the UK”.

3. “We have over 120 exclusive contracts with bars, clubs, restaurants, and event companies to provide them with seasonal staff next summer”.

Response

Ace Working Holidays Ltd did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

Assessment

The ASA was concerned by Ace Working Holidays’ lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was in breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code.  (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.

1. Upheld

We considered that consumers would understand the claim "Ace Working Holidays have been helping 1st year workers with jobs and accommodation for over 7 summer seasons. Offering workers packages in Magaluf, Ibiza, Zante, Kavos, Ayia Napa and Malia" to mean that Ace Working Holidays had been able to help their customers secure employment and accommodation in the listed resorts over the last seven summers.

Ace Working Holidays had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that they had secured employment or accommodation in any of the listed resorts for their customers over the last seven summers. In light of that, we considered that the claim had not been substantiated and therefore concluded that it was misleading.

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  3.7 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).

2. Upheld

We considered that consumers would understand the claim “Ace Working Holidays is the only workers' company based in the UK at our regional office and in our main resort office in the heart of Magaluf” to mean that Ace Working Holidays had an office both in the UK and in Magaluf.

Ace Working Holidays had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that they operated from an office in the UK or in Magaluf. For that reason, we considered the claim had not been substantiated and therefore concluded that it was misleading.

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),  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) and  3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.  (Comparisons).

3. Upheld

We considered that consumers would understand from the claim "We have over 120 exclusive contracts with bars, clubs, restaurants, and event companies to provide them with seasonal staff next summer" that Ace Working Holidays had contractual agreements in place with the listed groups in order to secure employment for their customers and that those agreements were not accessible through any other working holiday company.

Ace Working Holidays had neither provided any evidence to demonstrate those agreements were in place, nor that those agreements were exclusive to them. For those reasons, we considered that the claim had not been substantiated and therefore concluded that it was misleading.

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  3.7 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).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Ace Working Holidays to ensure that their future advertising did not mislead by making employment and accommodation claims and claims that they held offices in specific locations unless they held evidence to substantiate those claims. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

1.7     3.1     3.11     3.3     3.33     3.7    


More on