ASA Adjudication on Hairspray Corporation Ltd

Ad

An ad in the trade press stated "Hairspray is one of Europe's leading hair wholesalers. We supply over 1200 salons ... During these recessionary times, buying your hair extensions products at the right price has never been so important. Ordering from Hairspray could save you thousands of pounds each year on your hair bills. Check out HairsprayHair.com". Below this were pictures of bunches of hair extensions. Text above the pictures stated "Racoon Hair £82 (50g) Spanish Hair £45 (50g) Average Saving (full head) £110".

Issue

Racoon International Ltd challenged whether:

1. the claim "Average Saving (full head) £110" was misleading, because Racoon hair was priced on the basis of individual consultations only; and

2. the ad made an unfair comparison between the two products, because Racoon's hair was not Spanish in origin and came in different lengths.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Hairspray Corporation Ltd (Hairspray) said wholesaling hair was the same as any other wholesale business and that the salon trade bought the product in bulk and sold and applied it to their customers. They said the ad was targeted to the hair trade, and that if a salon called Racoon's wholesalers and Hairspray's wholesaler's to buy bulk hair for a full head of human hair they would make an average saving of £110 per transaction, if they bought from Hairspray.

2. Hairspray said they had conducted the price comparison using hair of the same length and quality as Racoon's. They said their hair was European in origin which, along with Russian hair, was the highest quality and most expensive product on the market. They said they had therefore compared their top quality product against Racoons top quality product.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA noted that Hairspray believed that a salon purchasing their hair extensions, as opposed to Racoons, could make an average saving of £110 per full head. However, we also noted that we had not see evidence that substantiated the wholesale prices of either their hair extensions or Racoons or that showed how they had calculated the cost of the average saving for a full head of hair or the resulting saving stated in the ad.

We also noted that we had not seen evidence that demonstrated that Hairspray's Spanish hair extensions and Racoon's European hair extensions were comparable in terms of their quality, length and weight. We therefore considered that the savings and comparative claims made in the ad had not been substantiated, and concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)