Ad description
A listing for a Mercedes Benz B Class B200d Sport Executive 5dr Auto, on the Marshall Motor Group website, www.marshall.co.uk, seen on 20 February 2023, stated, “Price £19,480 Was £19,899 Saving £419”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the savings claim was misleading because they understood that the car had only been listed for a short time.
Response
Marshall Motor Group Ltd (MMG) said the vehicle first went on their website on 27 January 2023, priced at £19,890. Therefore, by the 20 February 2023 the vehicle had been advertised for a period of 25 days.
They stated that the savings claim was accurate according to the price changes made to the vehicle and provided a screenshot showing the price changes since it had been listed with them. That showed on 27 January 2023 the car was listed for £19,890. The price then changed five times, fluctuating between £19,899 and £18,980 between the 5 February 2023 and 2 March 2023.
They explained that price updates on used vehicles could be made daily. They were based on market conditions using data intelligence and in some instances were amended automatically using their business software intelligence tool.
They further explained that the pricing of a one off used vehicle was very different to new stock that was stable and predictable. Used vehicles were unique, based on individual characteristics, condition and current market demand and there was no ‘usual’ selling price. They gave the example of a used cabriolet vehicle that would command a higher price in summer than in the winter. They said to keep their prices consistent and competitive, in a used car market that had undergone significant changes, price adjustments were needed when their market intelligence suggested it. They acknowledged that the vehicle’s original price was not advertised for a long period before being reduced. However, they said used cars had to be sold quickly as they were depreciating assets and waiting a period of 28 days was too long before making a reduction when there was not sufficient interest. They believed other motor dealers worked in the same way.
They said there was no particular emphasis given to the savings claim and while the savings amount might have been considered a significant amount on its own, in proportion to the price of the vehicle, it represented just a two per cent saving off the original vehicle price. They said that further to that there was no evidence that any consumer had been misled by the price claim and that it was difficult to see how any consumer could be misled by the ad given that the pricing information was clear and that consumers understood used car pricing, particularly that cars depreciate in value.
They confirmed if a customer contacted them and wanted the pricing history for a car before purchasing it they could always provide it.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion.
The ad made the claim, “Price £19,480 Was £19,899 Saving £419”. Consumers were likely to interpret the claim to mean that they were making a genuine saving against the original selling price. Consumers were further likely to understand the higher price to be one which they could use as a reference for estimating the value of the product, and against which the saving offered good value. The ASA expected that, in the context of the “was” price being used alongside a savings claim, the advertiser would be able to demonstrate that the price had been offered for a sufficiently long period of time such that consumers would see it as a genuine reference price.
We noted that the original selling price was labelled as a “was” price. “Was” prices were traditionally associated with time-limited promotional offers whereby consumers made a genuine saving against the usual selling price of the product at the time the ad appeared. Used cars, unlike new cars, were unlikely to have a “usual” selling price because each one was unique, as MMG had explained. Nevertheless, because it was placed alongside a savings claim, the “was” price was being used in the ad as a reference price against which consumers could make a genuine saving.
We understood that the car had been advertised at £19,899 for a short period of time and MMG had made the choice to lower the price to meet market demand. The price had fluctuated over a period of days, being advertised at the higher price for five days. Therefore, we considered the “was price” had not been established as a reference for its value, and the price reduction did not represent a genuine saving for consumers.
Because the ad incorporated a “was” price and “saving” claim, but did not refer to a genuine saving for consumers, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.17 (Prices).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Marshall Motor Group Ltd to ensure their future savings claims did not mislead.
