Ad description

A press ad in the May edition of GO magazine, seen 14 April 2011, stated “Own a pair of Alt-Berg boots worth £170! - the only outdoor boot brand available in 5 width fittings! Subscribe for 2 years to TGO magazine and receive a FREE pair of Alt-Berg Tethera boots worth an amazing £170. 24 issues of TGO + Alt-Berg boots worth a total £256.00! You pay only £72. Saving a massive £184! Offer reference code 1326. Terms and conditions. This offer is available from April 7th to May 4th 2011. This offer is available to new subscribers only. Offer code must be quoted at time of subscribing in order to receive the free gift. Both offers are only available on the full rate subscription and are not available in conjunction with any other offer. Please visit www.tgomagazine.co.uk for full subscription terms and conditions”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the advertisers had made a reasonable estimate of the likely response to the promotion.

Response

Newsquest Media Group Ltd (Newsquest) trading as The Great Outdoors (TGO) stated that TGO had made a reasonable estimate of the likely response based on previous promotions. They provided information about a recent, similar promotion run in TGO for a Hi-Tec boot and two-year subscription to TGO for £72. They provided a screenshot of the order system from that promotion, which showed the number of subscriptions that had been delivered. They stated that previous promotions had been open to both renewing and new subscribers whereas the Alt-Berg Tethera boot promotion was for new subscribers only.

They stated that the number of Alt-Berg boots for the promotion was agreed verbally with the supplier and confirmed the number of pairs of Alt-Berg boots that were available in the promotion. They said that, based on the previous promotion response, they considered that the number of pairs of Alt-Berg boots available was a reasonable estimate. They recognised that the estimate had proved insufficient, but pointed out that no reader had lost money or suffered detriment, because those consumers who had responded after the entire stock of Alt-Berg boots had been allocated were not held to the subscription application and that most disappointed applicants accepted a combined alternative product or discount.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that the documentation provided about the previous Hi-Tec promotion showed that that promotion also related to a promotional offer for a two-year subscription to TGO magazine, with a pair of boots, which the ad stated was available to new subscribers only, and which was also priced at £72. We noted that the Hi-Tec boots were advertised as “worth £90 SRP” (suggested retail price), whereas the Alt-Berg boots were advertised as “worth £170”, and were therefore worth more than the Hi-Tec boots, but considered that the promotions were comparable and that the advertisers had selected an appropriate example on which to base their estimated response to the Alt-berg promotion.

We noted, however, that although the Alt-berg boots were worth more than the Hi-Tec boots, and the promotion was offered at the same price of £72 in both cases, we considered that the advertisers had substantially less stock available for the more valuable Alt-berg offer than for the Hi-Tec offer. We considered, however, that a more valuable offer was likely to elicit at least as many, and possibly a higher number of responses, than a less valuable promotion offered at the same price, on the basis that it was worth more and would therefore be a more attractive offer for consumers.

In light of that, and on the basis of the evidence provided, we concluded that the advertisers had not made the most reasonable estimate of likely demand in light of the information available to them.

The promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.27, 3.28, 3.28.1 (Availability), 8.1, 8.2 and 8.9 (Sales promotions).

Action

We told Newsquest to take more care when planning similar offers in future and to ensure that they had enough stock to satisfy demand.


More on