Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and two were Not upheld.
Ad description
A website, seen on 25 April 2014, and press ad for Wren Living, www.wrenliving.com, which sold products including furniture:
a. A product page for a "Chelsea Alabaster Nest 3 of Tables" included text which stated "Now only £169.00. Was £378.00* - Save £209.00. *was price charged in our Howden & Aberdeen stores (from 13/03/2014 - 09/04/2014)".
b. A product page for a "Farmhouse Ivory Oak 2Door 1DrawerWardrobe" included text which stated "Now only £399.00. Was £699.00. - Save £300.00".
c. A product page for a "Rustic Jacobean Oak 3 Drawer Bedside Table" included a price comparisons section and text which stated "At Wren Living we believe that cutting edge design, great quality, exceptional customer service should be for everyone; and at Wren you could save up to 50% off other retailers' prices on like-for-like products". Underneath prices for various different retailers were listed, including Wren Living and Oak Furniture Land.
d. A national press ad stated "WE'LL BEAT ANY QUOTE" and small print at foot of the ad stated "if it's less than Wren price including any discounts or offers then we'll beat it. Quote must be comparable in quality, structure and style and is subject to the store manager's discretion".
Issue
JB Global Ltd, whose brands included Oak Furniture Land, challenged whether:
1. the savings claim in ad (a), which they understood was based on the price charged in Wren Living's Howden & Aberdeen stores from 13/03/2014 to 09/04/2014 and which they did not believe was a genuine retail price, was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the savings claim in ad (b), for which no basis was included in the ad, was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. the claim "at Wren you could save up to 50% off other retailers' prices on like-for-like products" in ad (c) could be substantiated; and
4. the claim "WE'LL BEAT ANY QUOTE" in ad (d) was contradicted by the terms which stated that it was "subject to the store manager's discretion".
Response
1. & 2. Wren Living Ltd said they had introduced free-standing furniture such as the Chelsea Alabaster Nest of Tables in ad (a) and the Farmhouse Ivory Oak Wardrobe in ad (b) in November 2013. They had no experience of selling free-standing furniture and therefore when setting the list prices for the products (the 'was' prices in the ads) they had regard to prices charged by other retailers for similar products. They provided details of those prices. They said that using those prices demonstrated the prices were genuine retail prices and that, because their competitors sold products at those prices, it was reasonable for Wren Living to assume they could sell a significant number of the products at those prices. They said that both products were offered at the full list prices at all Wren Living stores and their website for a period of 28 days from 3 November 2013 to 31 November 2013. They said this was a sufficient period of time to be considered a genuine offer of sale to the public. They believed their pricing approach was in line with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Pricing Practices Guide (PPG).
From 1 December 2013, Wren Living went into a period of discounting and the discounted prices (those stated in the ads) were then charged in all Wren Living stores and on their website from that date until 12 March 2014. From 13 March 2014 to 9 April 2014 the original list prices were introduced for certain free-standing furniture products, including the tables in ad (a) but not the wardrobe in ad (b), at their Aberdeen and Howden Stores. The list prices continued to be charged at the Aberdeen store.
In relation to ad (a) they said that because the products had been marketed at the list price for 28 days in November 2013 they were entitled to use that as a "was" price, regardless of the fact they had also charged that price at their Aberdeen and Howden stores more recently. They also believed that even if the list price had only been charged at the Aberdeen and Howden stores, the ad would not be misleading. They said the ad explained the basis of the comparison by stating "was price charged in our Howden & Aberdeen stores (from 13/03/2014 - 09/04/2014)". Because the basis of the comparison was stated in the ad they did not believe consumers could be misled by the 'was' price.
In relation to ad (b) they said that because the product was marketed at the list price for 28 days in November 2013 they were entitled use that as a 'was' price in the ad. They did not believe they were required to be explicit in the ad about the basis of the savings claim.
3. Wren said the claim "Wren you could save up to 50% off other retailers' prices on like-for-like products" in ad (c) was based on daily price monitoring of competitors' comparable products. They provided a schedule of the price monitoring for 25 April. They said the process involved ascertaining the cheapest price offered by a competitor for a comparable product and comparing that with Wren Living's price. They said the schedule showed a total of 217 free-standing furniture products and that of those, 53 of Wren Living's products were at least 50% cheaper than the cheapest competitors' products. They provided a selection of screenshots taken on 25 April from competitors’ websites to demonstrate that the prices quoted in the spreadsheet were accurate. They said consumers were able to verify the information regarding the price difference for each product on individual product pages. They provided further comparative details regarding design, materials, and other relevant features for a selection of products to demonstrate that the products were "like-for-like". They believed the evidence demonstrated that well over 10% of Wren's products were at least 50% cheaper than comparable products from competitors.
4. Wren Living said the reference to a manager's discretion was in relation to the fact the quote must be "comparable in quality, structure and style", as stated in the ad. They said the reference was not intended to communicate that managers had the discretion to refuse to beat a quote where it was comparable in quality, structure and style. They said they would not use the words "store manager's discretion" in isolation in any future ads.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the claim "Now only £169.00. Was £378.00* - Save £209.00" that £378 was the usual selling price for the product and that the advertised selling price of £169 represented a genuine saving on that usual price. We understood that the product had been sold for approximately six months at the time the ad was seen, and that in that time it had been marketed for sale at the price of £378 at all Wren Living stores (including online) for 28 days in November 2013 and subsequently for 28 days at two stores from March to April 2013. The ad referred to this later period as the basis for the savings claim. We considered that, although this qualification was likely to be seen by consumers, it did not over-ride the general impression that £378 was the usual selling price for the product and that the offered selling price represented a genuine saving. The product had been on sale for the lower price of £169 for five out of the last six months at all of Wren Living's 50 stores and online, apart from at two stores, for a further 28 days. We therefore considered that the normal selling price for the product was £169 and it was misleading to refer to £378 as a 'was' price and to make a savings claim on that basis. We concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point ad (a) 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).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand from the claim "Now only £399.00. Was £699.00. - Save £300.00" that £699 was the usual selling price for the product and that the advertised selling price of £399 represented a genuine saving on that usual price. We understood that the product had been sold for approximately six months at the time the ad was seen, and in that time it had been marketed for sale at the price of £699 at all Wren Living stores (including online) for 28 days in November 2013. The product had been on sale for the lower price of £399 for five out of the six months at all of their stores including online and we therefore considered that was the normal selling price for the product and that it was misleading to refer to £699 as a 'was' price and to make a savings claim on that basis. We concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point ad (b) 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).
3. Not upheld
The claim "at Wren you could save up to 50% off other retailers' prices on like-for-like products" appeared on a specific product's page but referred generally to like-for-like products. Underneath, five retailers were listed including Wren Living and Oak Furniture Land. We considered that consumers would therefore understand from the claim that they could save up to 50% off other retailer's prices for like-for-like products compared to Wren Living's prices. We considered that we needed to see evidence that a reasonable proportion of all Wren Living's product were at least 50% cheaper than like-for-like products from other retailers. The spreadsheet provided by Wren Living listed their products and also listed prices for a number of competitors. The competitors' prices were listed only for 'comparable' products. Wren Living had identified the cheapest competitor price for each of their products and then compared it against their own price. The spreadsheet showed that all of Wren Living's products were cheaper than the cheapest competitor's comparable products and that 24% were at least 50% cheaper. We randomly selected six products and asked Wren Living to provide screenshots of the prices from the cheapest competitor's websites from 25 April, which they did. Those screenshots matched the prices shown in the spreadsheet and we therefore considered Wren Living had demonstrated those prices were accurate.
The claim also referred to the competitors' products as "like-for-like" and the first part of the sentence referred to "cutting edge design" and "great quality". We therefore considered that consumers would understand the products which they were comparing against to be very similar in terms of quality, design, material and construction. We asked Wren Living to provide comparative details for 11 randomly selected products, to demonstrate they were "like-for-like". Wren Living had also provided a further seven examples which they had selected. The evidence provided about the Wren Living and competitor products demonstrated that nine of the 11 randomly selected products were substantially similar in terms of quality, design, material and construction, and that was also the case for all of the further seven examples provided. Any differences between the products were minor, for example, a minor difference in the design of the legs of a bedstead or a different material used for the knobs on a bedside table. We therefore considered that to describe these products as "like-for-like" in the context of design and quality was not misleading. We noted that two products (a mattress and bedside table) had substantial differences in terms of design and quality and therefore that the products were not sufficiently similar to be described as "like-for-like". In the case of the mattress, the competitor product was hand tufted, whereas the Wren Living product was micro-quilted, and no information regarding the upholstery materials of the competitor's product was given by Wren Living. In the case of the bedside table, the Wren Living product was not the same colour as the competitor product, had a different top, different handles and substantially different leg design. Overall, 16 of the 18 product examples provided appeared to be substantially similar in terms of design and quality, and we therefore considered it was therefore reasonable to extrapolate that the proportion of products which were both "like-for-like" and over 50% cheaper than competitor product would be a reasonable one, and in excess of 10% of Wren Living's products overall. We therefore concluded that the claim "at Wren you could save up to 50% off other retailers' prices on like-for-like products" had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point we investigated ad (c) under 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),
3.33
3.33
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.
and
3.35
3.35
They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price.
(Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and
3.39
3.39
Marketing communications that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear.
CAP has published a Help Note on Retailers' Price Comparisons and a Help Note on Lowest Price Claims and Price Promises.
(Price comparisons), but did not find it in breach.
4. Not upheld
We understood that Wren Living would beat any quote, provided the product was "comparable in quality, structure and style", as qualified in the ad. The text which stated "subject to the store manager's discretion" referred only to this qualification, and not to the offer to beat any quote. We therefore concluded the claim "WE'LL BEAT ANY QUOTE" was not misleading.
On this point we investigated ad (d) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in their current form. We told Wren Living Ltd to ensure that prices used as the basis of savings claims reflected the normal selling price for that product.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.17 3.3 3.33 3.35 3.39 3.7 3.9
