Ad description

A TV ad (a) and an ad on the Sports Direct International website (b) for a sale on footwear were seen on 21 March 2011.

a. The TV featured a voice-over which stated "Massive footwear savings. Adidas Adi5 Turf Boots just £15, yes £15. And Lee Cooper men's and women's canvas trainers are £5, yes, just £5. At over 300 stores nationwide and online". On-screen text read "Offers max 3 per person. Selected styles.".

b. The website ad included text which stated "AT LEAST HALF PRICE FOOTWEAR". A boxed section of the page contained images of several pairs of variously coloured canvas trainers and was labelled "THIS WEEKS TV OFFER". Additional text stated "MAX 3 PER CUSTOMER".

Issue

One complainant, who had attempted to buy a pair of the Lee Cooper trainers on-line, challenged whether the ads were misleading because he understood that stock was limited and that the offer applied to specific sizes only, which the ads did not state.

Response

Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd (Sports Direct) stated that the TV ad had been broadcast from Thursday 17 March to Tuesday 22 March and that the website ad was displayed for the same period. They said the advertised products were available at the discounted price during that period and for the following 14 days in all of their stores and via their website. They said the offer was available on a broad range of products in a variety of colours, a total of 31 different Lee Cooper trainers and 10 different Adidas trainers. They stated that the offer was not limited to specific sizes.

Sports Direct stated that they frequently ran similar sales promotions to the one seen by the complainant. They said it could be difficult to predict the increased demand a promotion would generate because this would depend upon the brand, colour, the extent of the price reduction and additional factors such as the weather and the time of year. They explained, however, that previous promotions had shown an average range of increased demand and they provided a spreadsheet which showed the weekly sales figures upon which they had based their estimation of the required stock levels for this promotion. They pointed out that the aggregate stock level when the sale began exceeded that which previous promotions suggested was necessary to cope with the maximum likely response. They also pointed out that their stock had not been exhausted during the promotion.

Sport Direct said they had a sophisticated computerised stock management and allocation system which monitored availability and maintained a fluid supply of stock to all outlets. They explained that all items in their warehouse were available on-line and that, in order to maintain continuity of supply, stock held at their two largest stores was also designated as available for sale on-line. They said their stock management system would recall stock from stores where sales were low in order to supplement warehouse and other stores stock levels. They stated that, while it was possible that there was no on-line availability when the complainant attempted to buy the product, the systems they had in place meant it would be very rare for there to be no stock available on-line and that, if that did happen, availability would quickly be restored.

Sports Direct said the only qualification to the offer was that customers were limited to buying three pairs of trainers each and they pointed out that the ad had made that clear.

Clearcast stated that, in relation to the TV ad (a), they had asked Sports Direct to demonstrate that there was sufficient stock to meet the anticipated demand and they provided a copy of the letter they received confirming this. They said they were satisfied on the basis of the information supplied to them that qualificatory text relating to the availability of stock was not necessary for the ad. They did not think that the complainant’s experience when trying to buy the product had a bearing on the acceptability of the ad.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted that Sports Direct frequently ran promotions similar to the one the complainant had seen and that they had been able to establish patterns in the levels of increased demand. We noted that their total stock level before the promotion began exceeded that which was necessary to cope with the maximum increased demand witnessed in response to previous promotions.

We understood that the complainant had found one of the advertised products in one of the colours to be out of stock when he attempted to buy it on-line on the penultimate day of the sale and that he had been informed that the same product in another colour was only in stock in one size. We noted, however, that the sales figures showed the stock available for each product had not been exhausted by the time the promotion ended. Furthermore, we noted that a stock management system was in place to re-allocate stock between stores and the warehouse to help ensure gaps in availability were minimised.

We considered that it was not possible to determine in advance the exact number of each product, in each colour and size that would be needed to satisfy the demand generated by a promotional offer. Because we considered that Sports Direct had made a reasonable estimate of the response to the promotion and because they had ensured total stock levels exceeded actual demand for every product, we concluded that the ads were not misleading.

We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.10 (Qualification) and 3.28 and 3.29.1 (Availability) but did not find it in breach.

We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.27 and 3.28.1 (Availability) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.


More on