Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.designersofas4u.co.uk, seen on 2 October 2015, stated “50% OFF Chesterfield 1857 Leather Sofa - UK Manufactured - RRP £1276.17 [crossed through] £638.09 Save £638.08 - Valid until 04/10/2015”.
Issue
A complainant, who believed the sale end-date had been extended and that the product was not generally sold at the RRP, challenged whether:
1. the sale end-date was misleading; and
2. the RRP was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Designer Sofas 4u Ltd said the decision to advertise the item at an offer price was taken on a weekly basis, depending on them receiving preferential prices from their supplier. They said their website informed customers that, if they registered interest on a particular product, Designer Sofas 4u would honour the sale price they had seen advertised for a further 7 to 21 days.
2. Designer Sofas 4u supplied screenshot examples from other retailers' websites selling Chesterfield sofas of a similar size being sold by other retailers.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Designer Sofas 4u's explanation that the price change was made on a weekly basis because of the price being charged to them by their supplier. However, we considered consumers were likely to expect from the ad that the item would be available at the offer price until 4 October, after which it would revert to the higher price. We considered consumers might have felt pressured into rushing to make a purchase to take advantage of the offer when they need not have done so. We noted that Designer Sofas 4u said they would honour a sale price for 7 to 21 days, but considered the suggestion that customers needed to act by the "valid until" date was more prominent and would be understood more readily than the message that a sale price would be honoured. We noted that the "valid until" date had been extended several times and considered that the ad should not have given the impression that the offer price was about to end when that was not the case. Because the ad implied that the discounted price was time limited and would increase on a particular date when that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this 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), 3.31 3.31 Marketing communications must not falsely claim that the marketer is about to cease trading or move premises. They must not falsely state that a product, or the terms on which it is offered, will be available only for a very limited time to deprive consumers of the time or opportunity to make an informed choice. (Availability) and 8.2 8.2 Promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. Promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment. and 8.17.4.e 8.17.4.e Closing dates must not be changed unless unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the promoter make it necessary and either not to change the date would be unfair to those who sought to participate within the original terms, or those who sought to participate within the original terms will not be disadvantaged by the change. (Sales promotion rules).
2. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand references to RRP to mean that the product was generally sold at the stated price by other retailers, and that they could make savings of the stated amount by shopping at that particular retailer. Although Designer Sofas 4u maintained that they had previously sold the item at the RRP, we had seen no information from them, in the form of sales receipts or invoices for instance, which demonstrated that the item was generally sold at the RRP price. While Designer Sofas 4u had supplied a number of examples of Chesterfield sofas of a similar size being offered for sale by other retailers, there was a large variation in the prices. We considered that that suggested there were likely to be differences in specifications and that those prices were not a sufficient basis on which Designer Sofas 4u could base a specific RRP claim. Because we considered Designer Sofas 4u had not substantiated that the item was generally sold at the RRP, we concluded that 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), 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) 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 again in its current form. We told Designer Sofas 4u to ensure that savings claims against RRP were made only against prices at which products were generally sold and that ads did not suggest a discounted price was time limited and would increase on a particular date if that was not the case.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.17 3.31 3.40 3.7 8.17.4.E 8.2
