Ad description
The website www.humberimports.com featured several garden benches. The ad stated “Westminster Teak Bench … Was: £319.00 [crossed out] Now: £169.00 … London Teak Bench … Was: £189.00 [crossed out] Now: £149.00 … Windsor Curved Back Teak Bench …Was: £339.00 [crossed out] Now: £179.00 … Lutyens 3 Seater Teak Bench … Was: £359.00 [crossed out] Now: £199.00”. Below the listed products, small print state "All Internet sale prices are based on the discount from our current showroom prices".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the savings claims were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Humber Imports Ltd said they stated clearly on their website that “the internet sale price is based on the discount from our current showroom price”. They provided copies of cash and credit card receipts for a five-month period for a range of their products, and a spreadsheet which listed the “was” prices, which they said demonstrated that the benches were sold at a higher price from the showroom compared with their online prices. They also provided a video and photographs which they said demonstrated that they had a showroom on their premises.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand the “was” prices to be the prices at which Humber Imports usually sold the products and that the “now” prices represented a saving based on the products’ usual prices. We noted that the ad stated “All Internet sale prices are based on the discount from our current showroom prices” and that was stated below all the product listings. However, regardless of whether the qualification was seen, consumers were likely to consider that the online “was” prices represented the price at which the products were usually sold and not only the showroom price.
We acknowledged the range of receipts and the spreadsheet provided by Humber Imports. However, we noted that there were a limited number of invoices per product over the preceding five-month period, and the spreadsheet contained a brief list of prices which repeated the “was” prices listed on Humber Imports’ website. Although the savings claims were featured on Humber Imports’ own website we would have expected to see pricing history related to all their sales channels, including online sales, to demonstrate that the benches had been sold at the higher price for a meaningful period of time in the recent past prior to the price reduction. Humber Imports did not provide any online sales history and the invoices related to showroom’ sales only. We did not consider the ‘showroom’ invoices were adequate evidence to demonstrate previous or current sales at the higher prices in order to justify a comparison with the prices on the advertiser’s website.
We considered that Humber Imports had not demonstrated that the “was” prices were the prices at which the benches were usually sold across all channels and in particular online. In the absence of adequate evidence to demonstrate that consumers could make genuine online savings against the usual selling prices of the products, we concluded that the savings claims were likely to mislead.
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 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Price comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Humber Imports Ltd not to make savings claims unless they were in a position to demonstrate that such “was” prices associated with a savings claim reflected a product’s usual selling price.
