Ad description
An e-mail and a website for a company providing discounts on luxury products:
a. The e-mail ad contained a bedding range called "Hotel Living: 1000 Thread Count". Text stated "The long awaited return of this luxury bedding - up to 53% off." The ad provided a link to a range of bedding sold at discount prices.
b. The website ad showed the product and stated "£69.00 ACHICA". Text that was crossed out below stated "RPP £145.00".
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the products were not generally sold at the listed RRP (recommended retail price), challenged whether the ad was misleading and the savings claims could be substantiated.
Response
ACHICA Ltd said that the RRP price was not misleading because there were many similar products generally sold at that price on the market. They provided five screenshots of white duvet covers from other retailers' websites, which were advertised at £180, £137.20, £187.20, £140 and £144. The websites for the latter three products stated RRP prices of £260, £180 and £180 respectively.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the RRP price to mean that the same product was generally sold by other retailers for £145, and we therefore needed to see documentary evidence to demonstrate that the product was generally sold at that price. We also noted that, although the screenshots demonstrated that the products were offered for sale at the given prices, they did not constitute evidence that the product had actually been sold or were definitely available for purchase at these prices at the time the original ad was displayed. While we noted ACHICA provided screenshots of similar products being advertised at similar or higher prices than the listed RRP, we considered that the evidence did not show that the same product was generally sold at that price across the market. Because the evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the claim, we concluded the ad was 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), 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 3.40 3.40 Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told ACHICA Ltd to ensure that they held sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate RRP claims.
