Ad description
A national press ad, for Tufferman Ltd, stated "HALF PRICE! 3 STORALEX SHELVING BAYS ...". The ad showed three images of shelves connected with plus symbols followed by an equals sign. Next to the equals sign was a price bubble, which contained the text "£99 EX.VAT £118.80 INC. VAT Plus carriage". The ad also featured a table of prices which stated "RRP EX. VAT £197.00 OFFER PRICE EX. VAT £99.00 OFFER PRICE INC.VAT £118.80 CARRIAGE PRICE INC.VAT £17.96 TOTAL PRICE INC. VAT £136.76".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the "half price" claim could be substantiated.
Response
Tufferman Ltd explained that the Recommended Retail Price (RRP) of the product was £198 and that, unfortunately, a price of £197 was printed in error. They sent a screen shot of the product on sale on the manufacturers' website, which showed that the advertised RRP of one unit was £66.99 exclusive of VAT when bought through that route.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that an error in the published pricing meant that the ad implied the discount customers would achieve was 49%, rather than 'half price'. However, we considered that for Tufferman to evidence their half price claim they would need to demonstrate that the product was generally sold at the claimed RRP with sales data or invoices for sales of the product with Tufferman, and evidence of the product having been advertised or sold at the rate of £198 through other retailers if Storalex was sold elsewhere. We acknowledged the screen shot submitted as evidence. However, irrespective that the price indicated on the screen shot did not equal the RRP advertised in the Tufferman ad for three units, we considered that this was not satisfactory evidence to show that the product was generally sold at the higher price.
Notwithstanding that a different RRP had been used in the ad from that which the advertiser intended, in the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the advertised rate was the price at which the product was generally sold, we concluded that the "half price" claim had not been substantiated and was likely to mislead.
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 3.40 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 in its current form again. We told Tufferman Ltd to ensure that price comparisons were not misleading and that appropriate documentary evidence was held to substantiate them prior to making a price comparison claim. Advertised RRPs should reflect the price at which the product is generally sold.
