Ad description
A TV ad for Trivago, seen on 30 July 2017, began with an actress who said, “How many hotels does Trivago compare? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 300,000? 500,000? 700,000? Trivago now compares prices from more than a million hotels to find the ideal hotel for the best price.”
Issue
Three complainants challenged whether the claim that Trivago compared more than a million hotels was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Trivago N.V. t/a Trivago said at the time of the ad’s broadcast they were able to compare 1,579,506 hotels located in 190 countries. They provided a spreadsheet showing the total number of hotels on Trivago’s website that were viewable by UK consumers, month-by-month from March 2016 to August 2017. Trivago said it closely monitored the numbers of hotels available for comparison on their website every week.
Trivago provided a breakdown of the properties they compared by property type, which were (as of August 2017): apartment, beach, bed & breakfast, camping sites, casa rural, holiday home/apartment, hostal, hostel, hotel, inn, motel, Pousada, resort, serviced apartment and ‘other’.
Trivago said it did not agree with the ASA’s assessment of what a hotel was in respect of the investigation. They said they believed most properties in the holiday homes/apartment category would fall within the proposed definition. They gave the example that some branded hotel chains offered holiday homes/apartments (which could include bungalows, villas, cabanas, etc.) within the hotel/resort complex as an alternative to normal rooms. They said that guests staying in such properties could have access to the facilities of the hotel/resort.
Trivago stated, for clarity, that a serviced apartment was a suite or studio that was usually part of a hotel or several units located in one building or near each other. The apartment would be serviced like a hotel and had hotel-like facilities. They may have also belonged to a hotel chain. Holiday homes/apartments were fully furnished flats, houses, apartments, studios, bungalows, free-standing homes or villas or professionally managed condominium complexes, which offered basic hotel amenities. The properties included self-catering facilities such as kitchens or kitchenettes, alongside other facilities such as washing machines. A reception, office, or staff could be approached for assistance. Further services like regular cleaning, airport shuttle or swimming pool may have also been available.
Clearcast provided a document stating Trivago had reached more than 1,000,000 hotels in January 2016, with a signed assurance that should the number of hotels fall below one million during transmission, they would amend the ad.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered consumers would understand a hotel to be distinctly different from other types of holiday accommodation. The ASA considered consumer would understand a hotel to have indoor accommodation with private rooms and/or suites, as well as a building staffed around the clock. Although other types of accommodation may have similarities to this description, we considered consumers would expect the experience of staying at a hotel would be distinctive by its size, operation, appearance and the fact that rooms/suites would be not be shared with other parties. We noted that trivago considered this interpretation to be narrow, specifically in relation to holiday homes/apartments.
We considered beaches, camping sites, casa rurals and hostels would not match consumer expectations of the ad’s reference to “hotels”, in that they were either not staffed, shared with other parties, were not operated like a hotel, or did not retain an appearance similar to a hotel. While we accepted apartment-type accommodation in a hotel-like complex that included the features and services commonly associated with hotels to be similar to a hotel, the data provided by Trivago did not specify whether properties within the “apartments” and “holiday homes/apartments” categories had such features and services. We therefore considered those categories of accommodation were not relevant to support the claim’s reference to “hotels” in the ad. We considered the category “other” was not relevant because it was undefined.
Following those exclusions, the total number of properties came to 1,030,633. We therefore considered Trivago had provided adequate evidence to support the claim, “more than a million hotels” at the time the ad was broadcast. We concluded the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading. We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
In setting or revising any such standards, Ofcom must have regard, in particular and to such extent as appears to them to be relevant to the securing of the standards objectives, to each of these matters:
a) the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally, or in programmes of a particular description;
b) the likely size and composition of a potential audience for programmes included in television and radio services generally, or in television and radio services of a particular description;
c) the likely expectation of the audience as to the nature of a programme's content and the extent to which the nature of the programme's content can be brought to the attention of potential members of the audience;
d) the likelihood of persons who are unaware of the nature of the programme's content being unintentionally exposed, by their own actions, to that content;
e) the desirability of securing that the content of services identifies when there is a change affecting the nature of a service that is being watched or listened to and, in particular, a change that is relevant to the application of the standards set under this section...".
Section
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.
4).
(Misleading advertising) and
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), but did not find it in breach.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
In setting or revising any such standards, Ofcom must have regard, in particular and to such extent as appears to them to be relevant to the securing of the standards objectives, to each of these matters:
a) the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally, or in programmes of a particular description;
b) the likely size and composition of a potential audience for programmes included in television and radio services generally, or in television and radio services of a particular description;
c) the likely expectation of the audience as to the nature of a programme's content and the extent to which the nature of the programme's content can be brought to the attention of potential members of the audience;
d) the likelihood of persons who are unaware of the nature of the programme's content being unintentionally exposed, by their own actions, to that content;
e) the desirability of securing that the content of services identifies when there is a change affecting the nature of a service that is being watched or listened to and, in particular, a change that is relevant to the application of the standards set under this section...".
Section
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.
4).
(Misleading advertising) and
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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
