Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, two radio ads and a website for Motorway, www.motorway.co.uk, a used car selling service, seen and heard in August 2021:
a. The TV ad featured a voice-over that stated, “This is the new way to sell your car. The sell-your-car-from-home way. The car-dealers-compete-to-give-you-the-best-price way. The you-could-get-up-to-£1,000-more way”.
b. The first radio ad featured a voice-over that stated, “Simply sell your car the Motorway way. It’s the new sell-your-car-from-home way. It’s the car-dealers-compete-to-give-you-the-best-price way. It’s the you-could-get-up-to-£1,000-more way”.
c. The second radio ad featured the same voice-over as ad (b), followed by the statement “For pricing claim verification visit motorway.co.uk”.
d. The website featured a homepage with text that stated, “It’s free to find your best offer from 3,000+ verified dealers. You could get up to £1,000 more”. The asterisk linked to text further down the page that stated “Based on a survey of 2,079 customers who sold their car on Motorway between 1st March and July 22nd 2021, analysed and independently verified by Blue Yonder Research in August 2021. 42% of consumers achieved £1,000 or more with Motorway than their initial quote from other companies”.
Issue
We Buy Any Car Ltd challenged whether the claim "could get up to £1,000 more" in ads (a)-(d) was:
1. misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. verifiable.
Response
1. Motorway Online Ltd t/a Motorway explained that they operated a consumer-to-dealer marketplace that connected sellers directly with dealers through daily online auctions; matching a highest bidding dealership with a seller. They then charged the dealer a fixed fee for each purchase made using the service. They believed the average consumer would understand the claim “could get up to £1,000 more” to mean that a significant proportion of consumers who sold through their platform could achieve a price that was better by £1,000 compared to quotes given by other companies.
Motorway provided copies of two reports compiled by different independent research companies over different periods as evidence for the claim “You could get up to £1,000 more”. They explained that in the first report, 20,824 consumers had been sent the survey – that figure being the total number of sales recorded in the surveyed period – with 4,148 respondents. After the data had been cleaned up to remove respondents who had not received a quote before approaching Motorway, duplicates, respondents for whom there was no sales data, and respondents who had not provided a monetary value for the quote received, 2,079 remained. Of those, 42% self-reported that they had achieved a price of £1,000 or more for their vehicle on Motorway’s platform than they had been offered as an initial quote by a competitor. The second report had surveyed 18,813 consumers, with 3,694 responses received, and 1,842 responses remaining after the data had been cleaned up in a similar manner to the first report. In that report 42.7% of consumers self-reported that they had achieved a price higher than that of a competitor by £1,000 or more. They believed the figures of 42% and 42.7% represented a significant proportion of consumers. They said that two different independent research companies had been used to ensure the robustness of the results.
Clearcast said that although, in their view, the evidence provided by Motorway in substantiation for ad (a) was robust, they had recommended that the claim be updated to include the word “could” before clearing it for broadcast. They maintained the evidence showed that a significant proportion (42%) of consumers had been able to achieve a price of £1,000 or more on Motorway Online than through other sales channels.
Radiocentre said they endorsed Motorway’s response in relation to ads (b) and (c).
2. Motorway said that they had updated ads (a) and (b) to include information directing consumers to a page on their website, where verification information would be found. Their website had been updated to include a page dedicated to verification information. They believed the information provided – sample size, basic information about the methodology used and details of the group represented in the sample – was sufficient. As the claim was against the whole market they had not included specific information about the competitors against which the claim was made.
Clearcast explained they had not initially requested verification information for ad (a), but that the superimposed text in the ad had been updated to include a reference to Motorway’s website, where the information could now be found. In their view the updated information was sufficient for viewers to verify the claim.
Radiocentre said they endorsed Motorway’s response in relation to ads (b) and (c).
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “could get up to £1000 more”, in the context of the ads, to mean that by using Motorway’s platform, they could sell their vehicle for up to £1,000 more than by using other car-selling services, with that price difference being achieved in a significant proportion of cases. We noted ads (a) to (c) did not provide any information about the basis of the claim and ad (d) specified only that the comparison was against “other companies”. We considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim to mean they could sell their car for up to £1,000 more than any other car-selling service, including dealerships and other online platforms. We therefore expected to see substantiation that included all of Motorway’s competitors.
Motorway provided two reports from third-party companies in support of the claim. The reports were based on the survey responses from customers who had chosen to sell through Motorway, rather than all of those who had received a quote. Because it included only the responses of those who had received more than one quote but proceeded with a sale through Motorway, the survey sample was likely to consist only of customers who had been offered a higher quote. The number of people who had approached Motorway for a quote and subsequently gone on to sell through another provider from the same date range was unknown, and we therefore considered that the survey data was biased.
We noted the reports identified We Buy Any Car, “dealers”, “classified site” and “other” as the competitors or types of competitor identified by survey respondents, and against which Motorway had compared itself. It was therefore unclear whether the data sets used in the comparison covered all of Motorway’s competitors. Additionally, where the methodology was concerned, we noted the values provided by the respondents for quotes they had received from other companies were self-reported, and we had not seen evidence that Motorway, or the third parties who compiled the reports, had checked the accuracy of those values. We considered that the results of self-reported surveys were not sufficiently robust to support the claim, which required a high level of substantiation in support.
We therefore concluded the claim that consumers “could get up to £1000 more” by selling through Motorway had not been adequately substantiated and the ads were likely to mislead.
On that point, ads (a), (b), and (c) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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), 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).
On that point, ad (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Substantiation), 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).
2. Upheld
The CAP and BCAP Codes required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must be verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct consumers to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate, or ask someone suitably qualified to do so.
We noted that ads (a) and (b) did not contain any information that signposted to consumers where they could find more detailed information about the basis of the comparison. However, we welcomed Motorway’s assurance that ad (a) had been amended so that the superimposed text stated, “For pricing claim verification visit motorway.co.uk ”. We also welcomed Motorway’s assurance that ad (b) had been amended to include the voice-over, “For pricing claim verification visit motorway.co.uk”, as in ad (c). We considered the amended text for ad (a) and amended voice-over for ad (b) clearly signposted to consumers where they could find more detailed information about the basis of the comparison. We then reviewed the verification information to determine whether it was presented in such a way that it was sufficiently clear for consumers to understand the basis of the claim “could get up to £1,000 more” and check its accuracy.
We noted that the verification page on Motorway’s website, which largely replicated the wording in ad (d), featured some basic information about the basis of the comparison, including the number of consumers surveyed, the dates the survey was conducted and some limited information about the methodology used. However, we noted the page did not contain any information about where a copy of the report that formed the basis of the claim could be viewed. In lieu of a full report we considered that Motorway could have provided information including, but not limited to, some of the competitors included in the report, the full methodology used in the survey and report, the number of consumers contacted in the survey and the number of respondents, and the questions that respondents were required to answer as part of the survey. In the absence of that information, we considered that there was no way for consumers or competitors to understand the basis of the claim or check its accuracy.
For those reasons, we considered that ads (a) and (b), and their amended versions, and ads (c) and (d) did not allow consumers or competitors to verify the claim in the ads and therefore concluded they breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.35 3.35 Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
On that point ad (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.35 3.35 Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
Ads (a), (b) and (c) must not be broadcast again in the form complained of. Ad (d) must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Motorway Online Ltd to ensure that that they held adequate evidence to substantiate comparative claims in future, and to ensure such claims were verifiable.
BCAP Code
3.1 3.33 3.9 3.35 3.39 3.1 3.7 3.33 3.35 3.39
