Ad description
A promotion for car parts on the website www.eurocarparts.com, stated "30% OFF SELECTED CAR PARTS USE PROMO CODE CHILL30 ... 30% OFF BRAKING".
Issue
Two complainants challenged whether the 30% discount was genuine, because they believed the prices on the website had been inflated prior to the start of the promotion.
Response
Euro Car Parts said they had run a weekend sale between 13 and 15 December 2013, during which various products were discounted. A banner promoting the sale had appeared on their home page and the prices then reverted back to those at which the products had been available before 13 December, after the sale ended. The 30% off promotion took place between 17 and 23 December and the prices that appeared on the website during that period were standard selling prices. However, consumers were able to enter a promotional code to receive a 30% discount. They believed the first complainant had researched the price of a particular product during the weekend sale and that they had then checked the price of the product again during the 30% off promotion. Euro Car Parts provided details of the prices of their braking products from 3 June to 31 December 2013. They said the prices were consistent, regardless of whether or not a promotional code was available, aside from when there was a sale, and that they did not inflate prices.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the evidence submitted by Euro Car Parts, which showed that the braking products had been available at sale prices, or with a promotional discount available, on various occasions throughout the period preceding the 30% discount promotion complained about. We understood that during periods when discount codes were available, the reduction was the same across all items included in the promotion. During sale periods, individual products were subject to the same reduction on each occasion, however, we understood that the discount available varied from product to product.
We considered that factors including the prices at which a product had previously been available, relative to the price on which the discount was based, and for how long, had a bearing on whether the advertised discount represented a genuine saving. Immediately prior to the discount promotion, products had been marketed at the price on which the discount was based for only one day following a four-day sale. However, they had also been sold at that higher price for 41 days before the four-day sale. While the data included a large number of braking products, one of the complainants had researched the price of a particular item and we therefore considered the price history of that product. We noted that during sale periods it had been reduced by a similar percentage to that available during the discount code promotions and that, like other products, it had been sold at the price on which the discount was based for the majority of the almost six months preceding the promotion. We therefore concluded that the advertised discount was genuine.
We investigated the ad under (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 3.17 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
