Ad description
A TV ad and a poster, for Lidl:
a. The TV ad, seen between 2 and 5 October 2015, featured members of the public being offered a taste test of Lidl’s own brand vanilla ice cream compared to branded vanilla ice cream. The final shot showed the two tubs of ice cream side by side. Text next to the branded tub stated “£2” in large grey font, with smaller grey font directly underneath which stated “22p/100ml”. Text next to the Lidl tub stated “£1.99” in large grey font, with smaller grey font which stated “20p/100ml” directly underneath. Above the Lidl tub a pink roundel featured the text “SAVE 10%” in large white font, with smaller white font underneath which stated “PER 100ML”. A voice-over stated “Save 10% when you shop a Lidl smarter.”
b. The poster ad, seen on 12 October 2015, featured the branded ice cream tub slightly behind the Lidl ice cream tub. Text in a pink roundel stated “SAVE 10%” in large white font, with smaller white font which stated “per 100ml by switching to this Lidl product”. Text next to the branded tub stated “£2” in large grey font, with smaller grey font directly underneath which stated “900ml 22.2p/100ml”. Text next to the Lidl tub stated “£1.99” in large grey font, with smaller grey font directly underneath which stated “1L 19.9p/100ml”.
Issue
Ten complainants challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied that the tub of Lidl ice cream was 10% cheaper than the tub of branded ice cream.
Response
Lidl UK GmbH (Lidl) highlighted that both ads featured the pink roundel with text which stated “SAVE 10% per 100ml” and said the ads therefore made clear that the saving was per 100 ml. They said they had been very careful not to make a price comparison of the two tub prices as they were aware that they were different sizes; they believed it would be misleading to compare the price of their one-litre ice cream tub with the 900-ml branded tub. Lidl said the ads contained no suggestion or implication that the basis of the comparison was anything other than the price per 100 ml. They provided details of their calculation of the savings, which amounted to a 10.36% saving per 100 ml.
Clearcast, responding in relation to the TV ad, said Lidl had sent them information when they were scripting the ad and on reviewing the calculations they agreed that the saving claim of 10% per 100ml was accurate.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted that Lidl had based the savings claim in the ads on a comparison of the price per 100 ml of the two products rather than the price per tub. We considered that making the savings claim on that basis was unlikely to mislead consumers so long as the basis of the comparison was made clear in the ads.
We noted that both ads included information which stated that the 10% savings claim was based on a comparison of the price per 100 ml of the two products. While the text which stated “per 100ml” was in smaller font than the claim “SAVE 10%”, it was placed alongside that claim, within the pink roundel. Additionally, the price per 100 ml of the products was stated underneath the price per tub, which we considered highlighted that the comparison was being made on the basis of the price per 100 ml rather than the price per tub. We concluded that the ads made the basis of the comparison clear to consumers and were therefore unlikely to mislead.
We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.11
3.11
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
BCAP has published Guidance on Superimposed Text to help television broadcasters ensure compliance with rule
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
. The guidance is available at:
http://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/CAP/Help%20notes%20new/BCAP_Advertising_Guidance_Notes_1.ashx
(Qualification),
3.18
3.18
Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product or service depicted in the advertisement.
(Prices),
3.33
3.33
Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service.
(Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors) and
3.39
3.39
Advertisements that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear.
(Price Comparisons), but did not find it in breach.
We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Qualification), 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Prices), 3.33 3.33 Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors) and 3.39 3.39 Advertisements that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear. (Price Comparisons), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
