Ad description
A leaflet for The Money Shop, seen on 6 July 2011, stated "FOREIGN CURRENCY AT RATES TO BEAT THE POST OFFICE GUARANTEED". Underneath, the leaflet showed handwritten exchange rates for Euros and US Dollars at The Money Shop and at The Post Office. A label was stapled on to the leaflet which stated "CURRENTLY IN STOCK Australian Dollars, Canadian Dollars, Croatian Kuna, Czech Koruna, Turkish Lira". On the leaflet, underneath the label was a space for a date to be completed which stated "GET THE GREAT RATE SHOWN ONLY AT THE MONEY SHOP UNTIL __/__/__" with the space being left blank.
On the other side of the leaflet, text stated "WITH 0% COMMISSION, GREAT RATES PLUS OUR GUARANTEE TO BEAT THE POST OFFICE, THERE'S NO NEED TO LOOK ANYWHERE ELSE! ..." Underneath this was a white box in which text stated "OVER 400 UK STORES" and text, which had been stamped into the white box stated "3 Railway Approach Tonbridge" along with a telephone number.
Issue
The Post Office Ltd challenged whether the claims:
1."FOREIGN CURRENCY AT RATES TO BEAT THE POST OFFICE GUARANTEED" was misleading, because they did not believe it could be substantiated and because the leaflet did not contain information to allow the comparison to be verified; and
2. "WITH 0% COMMISSION, GREAT RATES PLUS OUR GUARANTEE TO BEAT THE POST OFFICE, THERE'S NO NEED TO LOOK ANYWHERE ELSE!" was misleading, because the leaflet did not describe the nature of the guarantee or how consumers could take advantage of it and because it appeared to contradict the "guaranteed" claim in (1) above.
Response
1. The Money Shop said that the leaflet was prepared and used in the locality of its Tonbridge Store in July 2011 and was based on information obtained from the rates quoted in the foreign exchange material displayed by the Post Office in Tonbridge on the same date. The leaflet had a limited geographical scope, was not intended to make any national statement about The Money Shop and referred to rates being offered in a particular location and on a particular date only. The leaflet had to be completed by hand in parts so as to ensure the data quoted was accurate.
The Money Shop said that staff were given clear direction regarding the preparation of the leaflet and its use. The staff members in the Tonbridge store were responsible for checking the rates offered by the Post Office in Tonbridge on that date and in ensuring that the correct information was included on the leaflet. Before leaflets were then dropped through doors in the local area, a store stamp detailing the store address and the date should have been included. Staff received directions on how to produce the leaflet with an operational bulletin and were made aware that the same leaflet should not have been used on any subsequent business day. Any unused leaflets were destroyed at the end of the day they were prepared.
The Money Shop noted that in this particular case, staff had attached additional marketing material (the label) to the leaflet in error with the effect of covering the date the leaflet was prepared and they reiterated that the date was required to be quoted on the leaflet before it was distributed.
The Money Shop said that the guaranteed claim on the leaflet linked to a particular date only and that this date should have been quoted on the leaflet. They reiterated that staff in Tonbridge verified the rates being offered on the date against those of the Post Office, and that the rates offered by Money Shop were better. They said that the leaflet was distributed on the date the rates were checked and that the claim was still accurate when the leaflet was being used. They said that the date on the leaflet would have ensured that customers were aware that rates were quoted on a particular date and that the information on the leaflet was sufficient for a customer to verify the comparison and to confirm that the information supplied was correct. The verification required a simple comparison of their rate for a particular currency against that of the Post Office in Tonbridge on that particular day. They did not believe that the leaflet would be likely to materially mislead, or that the information in the leaflet had been presented in a way that was unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely.
2. The Money Shop said they provided a price promise to their customers that if the Post Office in Tonbridge were to change its rates in the days following the distribution of the leaflet, they would vary their rate accordingly. This would mean that the customer would still get the most favourable rate, beating that of the Post Office in Tonbridge. They said that the rates offered by them in Tonbridge on that particular date were more favourable than those being offered by the Post Office in that area on the same date. They said that the guarantee was factually correct and was not, in their view, misleading in any way.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted The Money Shop's response that by including a date on the leaflet, they meant for the claim "FOREIGN CURRENCY AT RATES TO BEAT THE POST OFFICE GUARANTEED" to only apply on that specific date. However, we considered that while customers would link the handwritten currency rates on the leaflet to a date given on the leaflet, there was nothing in the headline claim to link it to any date specified on the leaflet and it could therefore be interpreted as a general claim to beat all rates that applied nationally to all branches at all times. We also noted in this case that the date field had not only been left incomplete but it had also been covered by a label so any connection to a given date would have been lost to a customer. We considered that even if the date had been filled in and was visible, most customers would interpret the guaranteed claim as being applicable all the time, not only on the date which should have been written on the leaflet.
We also noted The Money Shop's argument that the leaflet made it clear that the guaranteed claim only applied to Tonbridge but disagreed. We considered that it was not made clear that the claims to offer better rates than the Post Office were only applicable in Tonbridge and again, considered that most customers would understand this to be a general claim by The Money Shop that would apply to all branches nationally. We considered that the inclusion of the Tonbridge branch address on the leaflet would have simply indicated to customers where their local branch was, and not that it was just that branch where the claim applied, especially as the leaflet also referred to "OVER 400 UK STORES".
We noted the Post Office had concerns about verifiability, however, we noted it was not The Money Shop's intention to imply that they guaranteed to beat all Post Office rates. We noted that they only intended to imply that they guaranteed to beat exchange rates for euros and dollars on a particular date and we considered that this information was verifiable in the leaflet. However, we considered that the label stapled to the front of the leaflet indicated that The Money Shop held other types of foreign currency and considered that by attaching this to the leaflet, it gave the impression that the guaranteed claim also applied to these currencies and not just to euros and dollars, which had been specified on the leaflet.
Taking all of these points into account, we therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification),
3.33
3.33
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Comparisons with Identifiable competitors) and
3.54
3.54
Marketing communications must make clear each significant limitation to an advertised guarantee (of the type that has implications for a consumer's rights). Marketers must supply the full terms before the consumer is committed to taking up the guarantee.
(Guarantees and after-sales service).
2. Upheld
We noted that The Money Shop said they provided a price promise to their customers which allowed for their currency rates to be varied in the days following the distribution of the leaflet. However, we considered that the leaflet did not give any information about this particular price promise and did not explain to customers how they could take advantage of it. We also considered that as the first headline claim in the leaflet stated that lower foreign currency rates than the Post Office were guaranteed, this contradicted the claim that The Money Shop had offered a guarantee to beat the Post Office, as rates should have already been lower than the Post Office if they were 'guaranteed' to be so. We also considered that, as per point 1, customers would interpret the guarantee as a general one and not one that only applied to the Tonbridge branch as the link with the Tonbridge branch was not clearly or explicitly stated in the leaflet. We therefore concluded that on this point, the claim was misleading.
The leaflet breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification),
3.33
3.33
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Comparisons with Identifiable competitors) and
3.54
3.54
Marketing communications must make clear each significant limitation to an advertised guarantee (of the type that has implications for a consumer's rights). Marketers must supply the full terms before the consumer is committed to taking up the guarantee.
(Guarantees and after-sales service).
Action
The leaflet must not appear again in its current form.
