Ad description
The website www.woodandbeyond.com, for a flooring, worktop and decking retailer, seen on 14 December 2016, featured several promotions for wood flooring. One offer stated “YOU SAVE 70% … NATURAL ENGINEERED OAK PARIS WHITE UV OILED 14/3MM BY 150MM BY 400-1500MM … £97.11/m2 [crossed out] … £29.13 /m2 inc VAT”. A subsequent promotion seen during February 2016 stated the price of the same product as “£99.06/m2 [crossed out] … £29.72 /m2 inc VAT”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the ‘original price’ was regularly increased, challenged whether the savings claim in both ads breached the Code.
Response
Wood and Beyond Ltd said that the difference in pricing was likely to be a glitch on their system. Nevertheless, the said that prices were changed due to the collapse of sterling which had a large impact on imports.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers who saw the first promotion were likely to understand that “£97.11/m2” represented the usual selling price of flooring at the time the ad appeared, and that they could make a saving of 70% against that price. We noted that less than two months after the initial promotion had been seen, Wood and Beyond revised their pricing which increased the higher price of the flooring to “£99.06/m2”, while maintaining the claimed 70% saving. Consumers who saw that promotion were likely to understand £99.06/m2 to be the usual selling price against which they could make the claimed saving.
We noted Wood and Beyond’s assertion that their prices fluctuated due to the value of sterling, which affected their imports. However, because we considered that the crossed out price claim in each ad was likely to be understood to be the usual selling price, we expected to see evidence to demonstrate that was the case. Wood and Beyond had not provided such evidence, for example in the form of sales or import invoices over a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we were unable to establish whether either higher price was the usual selling price at the time the ads appeared. For those reasons, we considered the fluctuating ‘was’ prices were not a genuine representation of the price at which the product was usually sold at the time each ad appeared and concluded that those claims and the savings claims that were based on them were 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), and 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Wood and Beyond Ltd to ensure their future savings claims did not mislead about the benefit available.
