Ad description
A leaflet ad for a taxi company stated "UP TO 20%* CHEAPER THAN WHITESIDE TAXIS 24 HOURS A DAY - 7 DAYS A WEEK. NEXT TIME YOU NEED A TAXI TAKE THE PREMIER TAXI CHALLENGE! RING [Phone number] AND SEE HOW MUCH YOU CAN SAVE!...*PRICE CLAIM BASED ON FARES BEING AUTOMATICALLY 10% CHEAPER THAN WHITESIDES PLUS ANOTHER 10% CHEAPER WHEN YOU SHOW OUR FREELY AVAILABLE ADVANTAGE CARD".
Issue
T Whiteside & Sons Ltd (Whitesides) challenged whether the claim that Premier were up to 20% cheaper was misleading and could be substantiated because they did not believe that Premier were 10% cheaper at all times, and also because they had their own freely available 10% discount card.
Response
Premier Taxis Ltd (Premier) responded by stating that they were able to substantiate the claims made and that the basis for the claim "UP TO 20% CHEAPER" was made clear in the ad. They said they operated on the Fylde Borough Table of Fares 2008 minus 10%, whereas T Whiteside & Sons Ltd (Whitesides) used the 2008 rates. They said that, in line with Whitesides, they did not charge Tariff 2 on Saturday or Sunday, and so their fares were 10% cheaper at all times. They further stated that with the 10% discount card referred to in the ad the total fare would then be 20% cheaper. They provided signed agreements from all their drivers confirming that they charged the Premier rates whenever they undertook a booking received through Premier.
They stated that Premier rates applied to all bookings received through Premier, but that if any of their hackney carriages were to ply for trade or stand for hire in the street then they would be acting independently of the company, and as such any negotiation regarding price would be a matter of discretion between the parties. They advised, and provided evidence, that the law allowed for hackney carriages to act both as private hire vehicles and to accept bookings, either through a company or individual booking with the driver.
Premier denied that the Premier rate being applied relied on a button being pressed by the driver, and stated that the meters were set and sealed at the Premier rate.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered that, by confirming that they charged the 2008 rates minus 10% at all times, and that they did not charge Tariff 2 rates on Saturday and Sunday day, Premier were able to substantiate the claim that their fares were 10% cheaper than Whitesides. We noted that Premier said the fare meter could not be adjusted by the taxi drivers and that we were provided with signed documents from all drivers confirming the fare rate charged. We understood that the Premier rate might not be applied by hackney carriages plying for trade or standing for hire in the street, but considered that, because it encouraged consumers to telephone for prices, the average consumer would infer from the ad that it applied to bookings made through Premier.
We noted that both Whitesides and Premier had a freely available 10% discount card. However, we considered that by clearly stating the basis of the claim in the ad, Premier were able to substantiate the claim that they were up to 20% cheaper than Whitesides. We concluded that the claim was not misleading.
We investigated the ad 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),
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) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
