Ad description
A website, www.waltons.co.uk, for a company selling garden sheds featured text that stated "5.5m x 4m Waltons Pool House Log Cabin ... Total: £3549.95 R.R.P £4495.95 | Save: £946.00 (21%)".
Issue
Dunster House Ltd and one member of the public, who believed that the product was not generally sold for £4495.95, challenged whether the RRP quoted in the ad was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Walton Web Ltd stated that they sourced their garden furniture from Mercia Garden Products (MGP), which was also owned by Rosimian Ltd. However, they emphasised all trading between MGP and Walton Web was carried out at an arm's length basis and that MGP also sold their products to six other retailers.
Walton Web stated that the recommended retail price (RRP) of the 5.5 m x 4 m "Walton Pool House Log Cabin" had been set at £4,495.95 and was currently discounted at £3,549.95. Walton Web stated that they had only sold 25 units of the product since it was introduced in 2012 and provided receipts to show that they had been sold at higher prices of £5,274.90 and £4,548.96. Furthermore, Walton Web provided a list of six other online retailers that sold the product, along with screenshots of their websites, showing prices ranging between £3,999.99 and £5,876.00. Walton Web stated that the screenshots illustrated that five of the six retailers were selling the product at higher prices, which they believed demonstrated that the product was generally sold across the market at or around the quoted RRP. They also referred to a similarly styled shed offered by one of their competitors where the price included assembly. They said that without the assembly fee the price remained higher than the RRP of the product that they were marketing.
Walton Web stated that they had commissioned mystery shopping of the best purchase price possible for the product and comparable items. They stated that the results showed that six out of the eight retailers were selling the product above the quoted RRP.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that Walton Web had stated that the recommended retail price (RRP) of the 5.5m x 4m "Walton Pool House Log Cabin" had been set at £4,495.95.
The ASA understood that the product was sold by seven different retailers, including Walton Web. We acknowledged Walton Web's low volume of sales for the product and the receipts that they had provided for a "Pool House Log Cabin", which were sold above the quoted RRP during 2012 (£5,274.90) and 2014 (£4,548.96). However, the measurements of the cabins identified in the receipts were different to those described in the ad, and we also noted from the website screenshots of Walton Web's competitors that only three were selling a product with the same dimensions, one of which Walton Web stated was a comparable item.
We also noted from the screenshots that three other retailers had mentioned an RRP for the log cabins that they were marketing, but that, although they appeared to be similar in style, they had different RRPs (£4,499.99, £7,413.00 and £6,168.83) to that quoted in the advertiser's ad and only one of them, which was quoted at an RRP of £4,499.99, had matching dimensions. Furthermore, one competitor had shown a strikethrough price of £6,257.75 for a log cabin, but it was unclear whether that was the retailer's usual price or the RRP. We noted that the majority of the other online retailers that Walton Web had identified were selling different products and, that only one retailer selling a product of the same dimensions had mentioned a similar RRP. We also noted that the screenshots showed prices that deviated from the RRP in the advertiser's ad by up to 23% and in one case, a product with the same dimensions was on sale at a price 11% below the RRP quoted in the ad.
Although the screenshots showed that the products were offered for sale at the given prices, they did not constitute evidence that the product had actually been sold or were definitely available for purchase at these prices at the time the original ad was displayed.
Although one competitor was marketing a product with the same dimensions and quoted a similar RRP, we did not consider that this was sufficient to demonstrate that the product was generally sold at or around the quoted RRP of £4,495.95. We therefore, concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are 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), 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) and 3.40 3.40 Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Walton Web Ltd to ensure that future references to RRPs reflected the price at which their products were generally sold.
