Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
Ad description
A press ad offering a horse racing short break stated "Mobissimo are pleased to offer all race goers the once in a lifetime chance to see the worlds [sic] most prestigious race the Qatar Prix de L'Arc de Triomphe 2012 ... We have prebooked 105 seats and rooms for the event with 4 options: Option 1 - 2 day event from £130. Option 2 - 3 day event from £160. Option 3 - 4 day event from £200. Option 4 - 5 day event from £230. Flights from London, Manchester, Dublin & Glasgow (all direct) hotel is the Paris Charles De Gaulle Airport Mariott Hotel which includes: bed and breakfast and free transfer to the racecourse price includes flights & Hotel. We can guarantee flight and hotels prices 20% cheaper than any other market price! We are so confident in our price structure, if we cannot beat your quote by 20% then we will pay for your travel!! we [sic] ask for no upfront fees and payment is only required on receipt of tickets". The ad included contact details.
Issue
The complainant who bought one of the advertised packages challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "We have prebooked 105 seats and rooms ...";
2. "Price includes flight and Hotel";
3. "We can guarantee flight and hotels prices 20% cheaper than any other market price"; and
4. "We ask no upfront fees and payment is only required on receipt of tickets".
Response
Gary Stevens did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Mr Stevens' lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a 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 him of his responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told him to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would interpret the claim to mean that Mr Stevens had already arranged travel and accommodation as part of their package to the race. Because of that, we considered Mr Stevens should have held evidence to show that was the case. We had not seen any such evidence and for that reason, we concluded the claim 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) 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 understood the complainant had bought the break with the understanding the price covered travel and hotel accommodation. However, we understood from the complainant's experience that on arriving at the hotel, they then had to pay for their accommodation which was on top of the money they had already paid. We had not seen any evidence that demonstrated the price for each package covered the cost of flights and hotel room, as claimed in the ad. Given the complainant's experience and in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the claim "Price includes flight and hotel", we concluded it was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 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).
3. Upheld
We considered the claim "We can guarantee flight and hotels prices 20% cheaper than any other market price" was a comparative one and as such, Mr Stevens needed to hold evidence to show that was the case. That evidence should have included his competitors' prices for the same hotels and flights. We had not seen any comparative evidence and we therefore concluded the claim had not been substantiated and 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), 3.7 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 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons)
4. Upheld
The ad stated that customers only paid once they received the tickets. However, we understood from the complainant that they had already paid £400 but did not receive their race tickets. In the absence of a response from Mr Stevens on that point and from what we had been told by the complainant, we concluded the claim was misleading and breached the Code.
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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Mr Stevens to hold evidence to substantiate the claims made about the racing weekend package. We also told him to ensure he held sufficient comparative data when making comparative claims. We asked CAP to inform its members of the problem with Mr Stevens.
