Ad description
The website www.halfords.com, viewed on 4 July 2013, featured product listings for two car radios. The first stated "Pure Highway H260DBi Digital/FM/AM Radio with Bluetooth - WAS £169.99 SAVE £20.00 (11%) £149.99". The second stated "Pure Highway H240Di Digital/FM/AM Radio - WAS £149.99 SAVE £20.00 (13%) £129.99".
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the products had only just been released, challenged whether the claims "WAS £169.99" and "WAS £149.99", and the associated savings claims, were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Halfords Ltd (Halfords) provided a copy of the pricing history of the two products as well as data showing the number of sales for each week of the year. They explained that the products had been on sale at the higher prices since 17 June 2013. However, because fewer than 28 days had passed between that date and the time at which the prices were lowered, they had not intended to make any reference to the higher prices in their advertising. They said the item listings on their website showing the higher prices had appeared in error.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the industry best practice regarding price comparisons as outlined in the Pricing Practices Guide (the Guide) from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The Guide was not binding on traders, the Courts or the ASA, but was to be taken into account in marketing communications, as made clear in the CAP Code. The Guide recommended that comparisons with a trader's own previous price should generally use, as the basis for comparison, the most recent previous price for the product, which should have been available for at least 28 consecutive days and last offered no more than six months earlier.
According to the pricing history information supplied by Halfords for the two items, before the advertised sale began on 4 July the most recent previous price for the model number H240Di had been £149.99. That price was listed in that report as having been charged for over 28 consecutive days, but according to Halfords the item had only been on sale since 17 June. Further, the most recent previous price shown for the other model (H260DBi) was £159.99; there was no record of its ever having been priced at £169.99. The sales data provided by Halfords did not show the price at which either of the products had been sold. We therefore considered that the evidence supplied by Halfords was not sufficient to support the claimed savings for either model.
We considered that Halfords needed to provide documentary evidence showing that the items had been sold at the higher prices listed in the ad for a sufficiently long period to ensure that they were genuine retail prices and that consumers were not misled by the savings claims. Because they had not done so, we concluded that the claims "WAS £169.99" and "WAS £149.99", and the associated savings claims, had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
The claims 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 claims must not appear again in their current form.
