A brochure for The House of Bruar, seen on 16 December 2017, featured a Single Breasted Full Length Cashmere Coat and included the text “WAS £695 NOW £495” with the “was” price of £695 crossed out.
The complainant challenged whether the savings claim was misleading and could be
The House of Bruar stated that the garment was retailed at the full price of £695.00 from 4 February 2017 and they had sold 13 units. They said that due to poor sales the item was subsequently offered at the discounted price from 21 August 2017 where they sold 111 units.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “was £695 now £495” to mean that that the “now” price represented a genuine saving against the usual selling price of the product at the time the ad appeared. We understood that the product was sold at the higher price for just over six months before it was reduced for a period of three months and three weeks before the ad was seen.
We also considered that although there were more sales of the product at the reduced price, there were not an insignificant number of sales at the higher price, given that the product was a luxury item which would not be likely to be brought as often as other goods. We therefore considered that the “was” price was a realistic selling price. For those reasons, we concluded that the higher price was the usual selling price of the product, and that the savings claim was genuine and was not misleading.
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. (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.
No further action necessary.