Background

Summary of Council decision:

Four issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and three Not upheld.

Ad description

A regional press ad stated "ARMOUR WINDOWS WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER DEAL THAN ANYONE ELSE GUARANTEED! REPAIRS & GLASS REPLACEMENT SERVICE NOW AVAILBLE. Due to competitive demand at most competitive prices in Coventry. No Salespeople No Subcontract fitters OAP Discounts ... Not Your Typical Company ... WE ARE A LOCAL, RELIABLE FAMILY RUN COMPANY, OUR MOTTO IS - NOT ALWAYS THE CHEAPEST, NOT ALWAYS THE DEAREST, BUT ALWAYS THE BEST!"

Issue

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

1. "ARMOUR WINDOWS WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER DEAL THAN ANYONE ELSE GUARANTEED" because she received cheaper quotes from other companies;

2. "No Subcontract fitters";

3. "OAP Discounts", because she was not supplied with any details about the nature of the discount; and

4. "FAMILY RUN COMPANY", because she understood that the family of the owner was not employed by the company.

Response

1. Armour Windows said that a "better deal" did not mean a cheaper quote and the ad also stated "NOT ALWAYS THE CHEAPEST, NOT ALWAYS THE DEAREST". They considered their overall 'deal' would always be better, for example, they might offer better availability or might not take a deposit.

2. They stated that they did not use any subcontract fitters and all fitters that carried out work worked for Armour Windows. They provided details of their staff, which detailed the number of fitters employed by the company.

3. They said details would only be displayed upon request and considered it was unethical to ask each customer their age, as they might deem that an intrusion of their privacy. They said they did offer a 10% discount to OAPs providing they had not used any other sales or discounts. They provided evidence that the discount had been applied in previous sales.

4. They said the owner and manager were related and a number of family members of both the owner and manager were employed by the company. They provided human resource records for the company. They considered it was a family run company because the people who made the company decisions were related.

Assessment

1. Upheld

We considered that the headline claim "ARMOUR WINDOWS WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER DEAL THAN ANYONE ELSE GUARANTEED" would be understood to relate to the price offered and that they were therefore always cheaper than their competitors. Although we noted that the ad stated in the body copy "NOT ALWAYS THE CHEAPEST", it also stated "the most competitive prices in Coventry", which also suggested they offered the cheapest prices. We therefore considered that the claim "NOT ALWAYS THE CHEAPEST" contradicted rather than clarified the headline and concluded that the claim "ARMOUR WINDOWS WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER DEAL THAN ANYONE ELSE GUARANTEED" was likely to mislead.

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.  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).

2. Not upheld

We considered that the claim "No Subcontract fitters" would be interpreted to mean that the advertisers employed regular staff to carry out their fittings and did not hire sub-contractors or temporary staff to do that work. We noted that the human resource records and staffing documentation provided by the advertisers showed that several fitters were employed by the company. We considered that documentation showed that the company employed sufficient staff to carry out work fitting windows. We concluded that the claim had been substantiated and was unlikely to mislead.

On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.    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) 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), but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We understood that the complainant had not been advised of a possible discount, but had opted not to have work done by Armour Windows. We noted that the advertisers had provided invoices showing that a 10% discount had been applied to customers' bills and therefore concluded that the claim "OAP Discounts" had been substantiated and was not misleading.

On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.    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) 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), but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

We considered consumers would understand "FAMILY RUN COMPANY" to mean that the company was a small independent business, which was not owned by a larger business or corporation, and which employed members of the same family. We considered the human resource records and staffing documentation provided by the advertisers showed that most staff members were related to the manager or owner.

Because we understood that Armour Windows was a small independent business and employed a number of members from two families, we concluded that the claim "FAMILY RUN COMPANY" was unlikely to mislead.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.3     3.7    


More on