Background

Summary of Council decision:

Five issues were investigated, one of which was Upheld and four of which were Not upheld.

Ad description

A TV ad and press ad for Morrisons:

a. A TV ad featured Ant and Dec and showed Ant shopping around in a variety of supermarkets while Dec relaxed with his shopping outside a branch of Morrisons. When Ant joined Dec, they had a conversation during which Dec said, "You need one of these ... the new Morrisons Match & More Card. It price matches your comparable grocery shop here at Morrisons to Tesco, Sainsbury's and ASDA. And Aldi and Lidl". A voice-over at the end of ad stated, “Morrisons Match & More. The only supermarket to price match Aldi and Lidl.” On-screen text stated "Minimum £15 spend including one comparable product. Prices matched at Asda.com, Tesco.com, Sainsburys.co.uk and in store at Aldi and Lidl. Difference given in points on your Match & More card” and then “Maximum 10,000 points per shop. Excludes M Local. Terms, conditions and exclusions apply. See www.morrisons.com or in store for full details”.

b. A four-page ad in a regional newspaper included the text "We're the only supermarket to price match Aldi and Lidl ... and Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda. With the new Match & More card your comparable grocery shop is price matched not just to Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda, but to Aldi and Lidl as well ... and if you could've paid less, we'll automatically give you the difference in points on your Match & More card at the checkout. The points become £’s off your shopping bill", "It's not just on brands. We price match your comparable grocery shopping across brands, own label products and fresh food" and "Match. Your comparable grocery shop is now price matched to Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda. And Aldi and Lidl. If it could've been cheaper, we’ll give you the difference in points on your card. It's our price match guarantee". Small print on pages 2 to 4 stated "Minimum £15 spend including one comparable product. Prices matched at Asda.com, Tesco.com, Sainsburys.co.uk and in store at Aldi and Lidl. Difference given in points on your Match & More card. Maximum 10,000 points per shop. Excludes M Local. Terms, conditions and exclusions apply. See www.morrisons.com for full details”.

Issue

The ASA received 19 complaints:

1. Aldi and four members of the public challenged whether the comparisons in ads (a) and (b) complied with the Code because they believed they did not make clear how Match & More worked and that some product comparisons were so different that they rendered any comparison misleading.

2. Aldi and five members of the public challenged whether the comparison in ads (a) and (b) complied with the Code because they believed the relevant verification information was not sufficient.

3. Aldi and eight members of the public challenged whether TV ad (a) was misleading because they believed it did not make sufficiently clear that there was a minimum spend of £15.

4. Aldi and four members of the public challenged whether TV ad (a) was misleading, because it did not make sufficiently clear that any credit would be awarded in points, rather than cash, which could only be redeemed on future purchases at Morrisons, once a minimum of £5 worth of points had been accrued; and

5. Two members of the public challenged whether TV ad (a) was misleading because it did not make clear that points would be awarded for the overall difference on an entire shop, rather than individual items.

Response

1. Morrisons said that their Match & More scheme was designed to ensure competitor grocery products were correctly matched against the most appropriate equivalents, in accordance with the overriding principle that they compared products meeting the same customer need or which were intended for the same customer purpose. They explained that information regarding exactly how the comparisons worked was on their website.

They said that they employed a specialist company to obtain the online prices for their ‘Big Four’ competitors (Sainsbury’s, Asda and Tesco) every day. Another company then matched products in accordance with their rules as published on their website. Because Aldi and Lidl did not sell online, the price matching company covertly checked the price of different departments in multiple Aldi and Lidl stores twice each week, except during the limited store opening periods over Christmas and Easter when they checked once a week. The price checking company checked prices across a number of stores (10–15 per region) and then combined that data into ‘virtual’ stores. The actual stores were selected by the price checking company rather than Morrisons. This price checking process was equivalent to a full price check in three stores each. The prices and matches were then validated by them, making further checks where necessary. They believed their accuracy levels were high given that they monitored around 65,000 product lines on a day-to-day basis. They said that in terms of checking price, Aldi’s national pricing policy meant it was fairly straightforward to identify the current applicable price, however, they were reliant on the accuracy of data displayed in store.

They said it was generally more straightforward to match branded products because they had unique barcodes. For own-brand products the matching process was more problematic because the specification could be unique to each individual retailer. The ‘Big Four’ supermarkets used very similar product tier systems to the extent that they could assume a match between similar products in the same tier, although there were some exceptions (for example, if ‘fairtrade’ or ‘organic’ was a key characteristic of a product they would not match it with a non-fairtrade or non-organic product). They said the 'tier' in which a grocery product sat was dictated by factors such as ingredients, provenance, origin and flavour, all of which were within their matching scheme rules. It could be more difficult to match against Aldi products because they regularly sold own-brand products for limited periods under discrete brand names (which didn’t allude in any way to Aldi), but all of Aldi’s own-brand products were treated as such, even where they did not bear the Aldi name. It therefore was not always obvious from the brand name whether the product was a proprietary ‘branded’ product or an own-brand product, and this was compounded by the fact that many of the brand names did not contain clear tier clues. They said that although they believed their price matching system was robust it did involve human interaction and required an interpretation of the data against their rules. In relation to Aldi they compensated for this by matching generously in the interests of the customer and erring on the side of caution. They said that for the ‘Big Four’ supermarkets their matching accuracy was around 98% on the top 500 products by volume (branded and own-brand). They said that Aldi and Lidl matching rates were also high, but that the process was slightly more complex because the information was collected in store and there was therefore more potential for human error where they only had the description to match from in the first instance. They explained that, where a product (branded or own-branded) was comparable but where there was a size differential of up to 20% (larger or smaller), they included that larger or smaller product in the comparison and that the comparison with the competitor price was made on a pro-rata basis. They monitored matches constantly to ensure these levels were maintained and any errors found were corrected immediately.

They said that they only matched with products that were currently available from their competitors. When monitoring availability of products from the ‘Big Four’ supermarkets this data was available on their websites, but when monitoring availability at Aldi (and Lidl) this could only be checked in store. They clarified that by ‘available’ they meant that the product was physically available in store for purchase, rather than when the price ticket indicated the product was offered but was sold out, for example. They said that when calculating availability for the purposes of matching they used a statistically based system which erred on the side of caution by matching a higher percentage of products than were actually available at the time. They provided further details of how they calculated that a product was available (or had become unavailable) based on the data collected. They said they had studied Aldi pricing and availability prior to launching the scheme to arrive at a fair and reasonable system of collecting data. They had carried out a further study of Aldi availability in early 2015 in relation to the Aldi products which had previously matched with Morrisons’ top 200 products and provided a summary of results. They said that only 32.8% of Aldi stores monitored had stocks of all the products checked at any one visit, which they believed demonstrated that Aldi had relatively low levels of availability. They said that when matching under the scheme they recorded high levels of matches with core products, and provided some examples.

At the time of the original complaint in October 2014, they recorded matches against approximately 1,560 products out of 2,800 Aldi products that had been identified and were listed on their database. They said that the total number of Aldi products was derived from a list which may (or may not) be stocked rather than an indication that they were generally available. They understood that Aldi had a standard range of around 1,350 products and they referred to a newspaper article (which they provided) as the source for this figure. They said that when matching their own-brand products with Aldi products, most Morrisons products matched with one Aldi product and vice-versa, because they did not tend to produce more than one similar product for obvious commercial reasons. However, there were some cases (where the products were truly comparable under their scheme) where more than one Morrisons product would match a single Aldi product.

They confirmed that when matching with Aldi products they generally did so within the same tiers. The Aldi ‘Specially Selected’ range would therefore be matched against Morrisons ‘M Signature’ equivalent, provided the specific product fell within the matching criteria outlined in the rules on their website and was generally available when their independent price checker collected the data. They understood that some Aldi ‘Specially Selected’ products appeared to only be generally available for particular promotions or seasonal events because of the more limited space in Aldi stores which meant their product range was around one-tenth the size of that offered by the ‘Big Four’ supermarkets. They said that most other retailers would have at least one (and in most instances several) equivalents to an Aldi or Lidl grocery product and that subsequently a typical “basket” shop from their core range of grocery products would match with a reasonable high percentage of comparable Morrisons own-brand products.

They provided details of 100 products as illustrative examples of how the price-match scheme worked in practice, with 50 of those items consisting of branded products and 50 of their own-brand products (with the comparable own-brand products at competitor supermarkets). They also referred to three shops carried out by a retail industry magazine and said that in those cases when they carried out their own internal matching exercise (which they provided) they had achieved an average matching rate of 80% against the Aldi items included in those shops.

They referred to a test purchase carried out by Aldi on 4 March 2015 where they had purchased ten Morrisons top tier ‘Signature’ products. They confirmed that there had been no significant changes to the terms and conditions or matching rules since the scheme was launched. Morrisons provided the details of which Aldi products had been matched and how the points total had been calculated. They explained that because the shop consisted only of products from their top product tier there were fewer matches than there generally were for their standard product tier. They therefore did not believe it was representative of a typical shop or the typical number of products matched, which they said was better demonstrated by the three magazine test-shop analyses. Of the ten Morrisons products, two meat products were not eligible for matching under the scheme rules because they were sold by variable weights. Of the remaining eight eligible products, three were matched with Aldi products from their top tier ‘Specially Selected’ range and the points calculated on that basis. One product (bacon) was matched with an Aldi price of £1.99. Morrisons said that at the time of the test shop they had monitored the price of the Aldi product at £1.99 in all stores checked, apart from one store where the price was £1.59. Since 9 March the price had been consistently monitored as £1.59 and that was the price used to calculated points from that point on. One further product should have been matched but an error on the store system caused by an apparent file transfer error meant that did not happen. For the other four products, Morrisons had identified that Aldi had previously sold three products (sticky toffee pudding, a soup and a roulade) which they considered comparable under their matching scheme rules (also from their ‘Specially Selected’ tier), but they had not been matched on this occasion because they were not available at the time of the test purchase, and they provided further details of the matching history for those products They said that any time delay in updating availability data worked both ways (i.e. Aldi products would still show as available for a short time after that was no longer the case), but that their system was generally slower to pick up an out-of-date match so if anything this worked in the consumer’s favour. The final product (coffee) was not matched because although Aldi appeared to have a similar ‘Specially Selected’ Kenyan coffee, this was not identified for sale at the time of the test purchase (or previously). Furthermore, they did not consider it would be a match under their scheme because it was not marketed as fair-trade, whereas their Morrisons Signature Kenyan coffee was.

2. Morrisons questioned whether the ads were subject to the verifiability requirement, because the ads did not contain a price comparison but instead referred to their price match scheme, and the actual price comparison was made at the point of purchase. They reiterated that the information on the website provided consumers with a clear and easily understood methodology about when and how the price match offer worked. They said the URL given in the ads (www.morrisons.com) contained a direct and prominent link, via a tabbed heading, to the www.morrisons.com/matchandmore page and would therefore be clear to consumers. They said they gave their customers the opportunity to validate price matches against individual retailers and products and they explained how to do this through their Customer Services department on their website in the “How it works” section.

3. They said the information they provided on the minimum spend was in exactly the same format as minimum spend information in their competitors’ ads. They provided screenshots of the on-screen text for their competitor supermarket ads for similar schemes which they believed demonstrated the similarities in how information was supplied and with what prominence. They believed the wording “minimum £15 spend and one comparable product” was clear and not confusing to consumers.

4. They believed the on-screen text in TV ad (a) clearly stated that the difference was awarded in points on the customer’s Match & More card and that the wording had been reviewed and approved by Clearcast. They said that customers who used their Match & More cards appeared to understand how Match & More worked and seemed happy that vouchers were awarded at sensible value increments without the need to claim each time and that there was no need to log on to a website or key in a receipt number, as with some other schemes. They explained that a £5 voucher was automatically printed out at the till after the customer accumulated 5000 points unless they requested otherwise. They explained that they could also save points and print them at a value over £5, if chosen by the individual customer.

5. They said they purposely used the wording “comparable grocery shop” in all advertising as a clear way of explaining the basic scope of the scheme, i.e. that they matched the total comparable “grocery” items in a customer “shop”. They said the language echoed that used by other supermarkets for price match schemes in similar ads. They provided examples of competitor ads which they believed demonstrated that language was commonly used in the same way.

1.–5. In relation to TV ad (a), Clearcast said the requirement of having a minimum of one comparable item per grocery shop was common place and believed that Morrisons had tried to simplify their redemption methodology by offering the comparison across a wide range of branded goods having a large parameter of inclusion. They said they used the established concept of matching goods for the same purpose and took into account provenance, quality of ingredients, origin, colour, fair-trade and whether products were organic or not to ensure as close a match as possible. They said all of this was explained on Morrisons' website which TV ad (a) pointed customers towards and that the ad itself included as much information as possible. They said the first piece of information in the on-screen text stated that the minimum spend was £15 and also made clear that any difference was given in points on the Match & More card. They explained that the promotion was designed with customers in mind and that they did not have to enter their grocery information onto a website. They also believed that £15 was a low starting comparison and pointed out that customers were not required to purchase a minimum number of items to qualify. They believed it was an enhanced way of comparing groceries that met the same need and purpose for their customers.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that both ads focused on the fact that only Morrisons price matched against Aldi and Lidl, as well as against Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda. We considered that the average consumer was likely to be familiar with the concept of a supermarket price-match scheme and would understand from the ads that holders of a Morrisons Match & More card would have their total comparable shop price matched with the named supermarkets and that if the comparable items were cheaper elsewhere, that difference would be awarded to holders of the Match & More card.

The presenter in ad (a) said “It price matches your comparable grocery shop here at Morrisons to Tesco, Sainsbury's and ASDA” and on-screen text stated "Minimum £15 spend including one comparable product. Prices matched at Asda.com, Tesco.com, Sainsburys.co.uk and in store at Aldi and Lidl. Difference given in points on your Match & More card” and then “Maximum 10,000 points per shop. Excludes M Local. Terms, conditions and exclusions apply. See www.morrisons.com or in store for full details”. Ad (b) also referred to “your comparable grocery shop” and contained the same qualification as ad (a). We therefore considered that the ads made clear how the price-match scheme worked in general terms and that further information was available on their website.

We considered consumers were likely to interpret the references in the ads to the price-match scheme to mean Morrisons would compare the cost of shopping done with them to the other named retailers. We also considered that consumers would expect those comparisons, particularly in the context of the references to Aldi and Lidl, to include comparisons with both branded and own-brand products, which was in line with the scheme’s intention. Furthermore we considered that consumers would infer that a large proportion of products sold at Morrisons were matched under the scheme (where an appropriate match existed), because the ad encouraged consumers to shop at Morrisons rather than shop around on the basis that they offered the price-match scheme. We therefore considered whether this was the case and whether the product matches were consistently applied in line with consumer expectations of a “comparable grocery shop” and the Morrisons’ guidelines.

For the three retail industry magazine shops which consisted of 33 items each, Morrisons provided details of which products matched with Aldi products and Morrisons were able to match 25, 33 and 28 products respectively. We noted that the number of products purchased was based on the average size of a grocery shop and we considered that the items featured (such as eggs, penne pasta, milk and white potatoes) were likely to be commonly purchased. Of the 50 own-brand examples further provided by Morrisons, 46 had Aldi matches. Whilst in the Aldi test shop a lower proportion of products (three out of an eligible eight) had been matched, we noted this related to a small number of products and that they were all from Morrisons ‘Signature’ premium tier. We also noted that in October 2014 Morrisons recorded matches against approximately 1,560 products out of 2,800 Aldi products that had been identified and were listed on their database, and that the lower figure was more reflective of Aldi’s core product range (the products sold in a typical Aldi store). We considered that evidence demonstrated that a large proportion of Morrisons products were matched under the scheme, including with Aldi products when appropriate matches were identified and they were currently available in stores.

We understood that the companies used by Morrisons checked Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury’s prices every day online, and that Aldi and Lidl’s prices were checked twice-weekly in store because they did not sell online. We considered that this was a reasonable frequency at which to check Aldi and Lidl’s prices, given the fluctuating nature of prices within the grocery market.

We noted Morrisons’ guidelines for identifying matches and we understood that where no matches could be found, those products were excluded from the comparison. We noted that where a comparison was with a branded product, the comparisons were made with exactly the same products (where they were available) and with the same products with up to a 20% price differential where the same size was not sold at that supermarket. The evidence demonstrated that of the 50 example items examined, only a few consisted of pack sizes 20% larger or smaller than Morrisons packs and would therefore be excluded from the comparison. We considered that it was reasonable to consider products to be comparable on this basis and that the evidence from the examples provided did not indicate this was likely to give Morrisons a particular advantage.

We noted Tesco, Sainsbury and Asda offered clearly tiered own-brand products and considered that the evidence from the 50 illustrative examples demonstrated that these were compared with the same Morrison’s own-brand items within the same tier type. We understood both Aldi and Lidl had far fewer self-branded products (branded ‘Aldi’ or ‘Lidl’) but that they stocked comparable products (under the criteria outlined by Morrisons) that were branded with another name and which were unique to, and owned by those supermarkets. We understood such brands were not always clearly tiered like the own-brand labelled products of other supermarkets. However, we understood that Morrisons aimed to match products meeting the same customer need or purpose, and took into account various elements including size, flavour, colour, dietary requirements, primary and secondary ingredients, origins, provenance and storage conditions. Morrisons also took tiers into account where they were clear, such as Aldi’s ‘Specially Selected’ range.

Aldi were concerned that the matches being made between Morrisons own-brand products and Aldi products were not appropriate – for example, that their premium tier products were being matched with Morrisons regular tier products. They provided details of a test shop they had carried out that they believed demonstrated the correct products had not been matched. Morrisons had provided the details of how the points had been calculated and which Aldi products had been matched with the Morrisons products purchased. We understood that because only top tier ‘Signature’ products had been purchased there would generally be fewer matches with Aldi products due to their more limited product range. In this shop three matches had been identified and the premium tier Morrisons products had been matched with the comparable premium tier products offered by Aldi. We considered that the three matched products were appropriate and in line with consumer understanding of ‘comparable’ as well as the Morrisons’ scheme guidelines. In relation to one product (bacon), Aldi believed that the incorrect price had been used. However, we understood from Morrisons that the price of £1.99 used in matching was the price found in all the stores monitored by the price checking company, apart from at one store where it was £1.59, and we considered it was reasonable in that situation to use the most widely available price.

We understood that whilst Aldi had, at some point, offered premium tier products which were comparable with three of the other items purchased (sticky toffee pudding, a soup and a roulade), they were not found on sale at the time of the test shop and therefore were not matched. We considered that it was reasonable for Morrisons only to match with items currently on sale at their competitors and that it would not be possible for them to match in those circumstances because there would be no current price to compare against. We understood that Aldi believed those products had in fact been available at the time of the test shop, and they had provided us with receipts to show they had been purchased on 3 March. In relation to the sticky toffee pudding, Morrisons said that the product availability had been very ‘hit and miss’ and that they had matched with the product when they found consistent availability, but that at the time of the test shop the product had not been consistently available. In relation to the soup, Morrisons said that the product had been matched continuously (based on it being available) from 7 October 2014 to 28 January 2015, and again from 14 February, but that at the time of the test shop they had not found it to be available. They said that since that time they had found the product to be available and had matched against it. In relation to the roulade, Morrisons said that the product had been matched as available from 24 October 2014 but that from January/February 2015 the product had not been matched because they had not found it to be available. They believed the product was a seasonal line which had not necessarily been restocked, which explained the decreased availability. One error was also identified where a product should have been matched but wasn’t, due to an error on the store system, but we had seen no evidence to suggest that this was a regular occurrence. Taking into account the test shop, Morrisons’ analyses of the retail magazine shops and the general information they had provided about how they monitored and determined availability of Aldi products, we considered that they had demonstrated they had sufficiently robust process in place to substantiate the claims in the ads that they matched with Aldi.

Overall, we considered that the evidence demonstrated that Morrisons compared products that met the same need or were intended for the same purpose, and the product matches were consistently applied in line with consumer expectations of a “comparable grocery shop” and their own guidelines.

We concluded that the ads did not misleadingly omit information or give a misleading impression of how the price-match scheme worked. We further concluded that, because Morrisons compared products that met the same need or were intended for the same purpose and the products were matched in line with consumer expectations and Morrisons’ guidelines, the ads were not misleading and did not breach the Code on that basis.

On this point we investigated TV ad (a) under BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.2 3.2 Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.  (Misleading advertising),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service.  and  3.34 3.34 Advertisements must compare products or services meeting the same need or intended for the same purpose.   (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors) and  3.39 3.39 Advertisements that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear.  (Price comparisons) but did not find it in breach. We also investigated press ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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 Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service.  and  3.34 3.34 Advertisements must compare products or services meeting the same need or intended for the same purpose.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and  3.39 3.39 Advertisements that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear.  (Price comparisons), but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

The Advertising Codes required that comparative ads (where there was an identifiable competitor) should objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of the products used to make that comparison. Comparative advertising in this context was defined as advertising which in any way, either explicitly or by implication, identified a competitor or a product offered by a competitor. Because the Morrisons ads explicitly identified a number of competitors they were therefore subject to the verifiability requirement. For a comparison to be considered verifiable advertisers should make available to consumers (and competitors) enough information about the comparison to understand it and include a signpost in the ad to that information, where necessary.

We acknowledged that the ads promoted the price-match scheme in general and did not themselves contain specific savings claims or reference specific products. However, for the reasons outlined above they were nonetheless subject to the requirement that the comparative element of the ad was verifiable. In this context we considered that for the comparison in the ads to be verifiable, Morrisons needed to signpost in the ads the methodology which would enable consumers to ascertain readily the basis on which Morrisons made their comparisons in respect of each supermarket. They further needed to provide the consumer who had shopped with them the facility to readily obtain specific details of what products at what competitors had been compared and at what prices to explain how the points total (if any) had been calculated. We considered these two elements would allow consumers to verify that the claimed price matching was taking place and on what basis. We therefore considered whether the verifiability information was available on that basis.

Ad (a) included on-screen text which stated “See www.morrisons.com or in store for full details” and ad (b) included small print which stated “See www.morrisons.com for full details”. We considered that consumers would understand from “for full details” that further information about how the price-match scheme worked and any associated terms and conditions was available on Morrisons website. We therefore considered that the signpost was sufficiently clearly described in the ads for verifiability purposes. Whilst we considered it would have been preferable for the URL to be specific to the Match & More scheme we noted that the home page referenced in the ads included a large tab at the top-centre of the page which stated “Match & More” and that in this context it was therefore sufficient to reference that home page URL in the ads.

The website contained a number of pages which gave information about the price-match scheme. The page linked to, via the ‘Match & More’ tab on the home page, was a general page (the ‘Match & More’ home page) which contained options for customers to log in to their account or to create an online account. The page also contained various links to more information. One link stated “Find out more about Match & More” and clicking on that link led to some more basic information about the scheme as well as a large “Join Now” button. The page also included another link “Find out more about price match” which linked to a page headed “Our Price Match Guarantee” which gave detailed information about how the scheme worked, including how they selected products for matching, as well as a link to the full terms and conditions. That same page about how the scheme worked was also linked to from the ‘Match & More’ home page via a link at the bottom of the page called “Price Match”, next to two other links to “Frequently asked questions” and “Terms & Conditions”. We considered that, because there were a number of pages on the website relating to the scheme and the links on the ‘Match & More’ home page were not clearly described, it would not be clear to consumers who had landed on that page where they could obtain the methodology which would enable them readily to ascertain the basis on which Morrisons made their comparisons. We therefore considered that the ‘Match & More’ home page should have included a more clearly labelled direct link to the page headed “Our Price Match Guarantee”.

We went on to consider whether the page headed “Our Price Match Guarantee” contained readily sufficient information about the methodology to enable consumers to ascertain the basis on which Morrisons made their comparisons. The web page provided details of the comparative methodology on branded items and non-branded items. The page explained that in general they matched products they believed met the same need or were intended for the same purpose, and that they used the visible pack information to determine that.

In relation to branded items the page explained that the products were matched providing they were the same brand, product variant and within 20% of the same size. An example table underneath provided further information. We considered that this information was sufficient for consumers to understand the basis on which comparisons were made in relation to branded products.

In relation to own-brand products, the page reiterated that customer need and product purpose was considered. It went on to explain that they used specific factors to ensure they matched fairly, including: product description and pack size; flavour; colour; specific dietary requirements referenced on pack; primary and secondary ingredients; origin; provenance; and storage conditions. It said that it matched comparable products within 20% of the Morrisons pack size, and also that products sold by weight (such as loose carrots) were not matched. It said that they matched as many products as possible but that this sometimes was not possible, for example if none of their competitors sold a sufficiently similar product, if their competitors’ products were not within 20% of the relevant product’s size or where the product was not available online (in relation to Asda, Sainsbury’s or Tesco) so they could not obtain a price. Whilst we acknowledged that the page provided that information, we considered it should have made clear that (in general) product tiers were matched across the ‘Big Four’ supermarkets and that the same approach was taken with Aldi and Lidl products where such tiered products were sold (subject in all cases to their other matching guidelines). We also considered that the page should have made clear that they matched with own-brand Aldi products which were not Aldi branded, and that they only matched with products which were currently for sale. Whilst this might have been inferred by some readers, we considered that to understand the basis for the comparisons it should have been explicitly stated. For that reason we did not consider that the information provided on the “Our Price Match Guarantee” page contained sufficient information about the methodology to enable consumers readily to ascertain the basis on which Morrisons made their comparisons.

We then considered whether Morrisons had provided a facility for customers who had shopped with them to obtain readily, specific details of what products had been compared, and at what prices, to explain how the points total had been calculated. We understood that customers could validate price matches for particular shops via Morrisons’ customer service department, but there was no reference to this on the ‘Match & More’ home page and we did not consider it was sufficient to include it on other pages. We considered that, to allow customers to verify the price matching, that page should have either included information on how to check the points calculation for a particular shop or included a clearly labelled direct link to a page which included that information. Whilst we considered it was sufficient to provide that information by email, the website should also have specified clearly anything they required customers to provide to enable Morrisons to provide that information promptly, such as a reference from the receipt or similar. For those reasons we did not consider Morrisons had provided a clearly signposted facility for customers who had shopped with them to obtain readily, specific details of what products had been compared, and at what prices, to explain how the points total had been calculated.

For the reasons given above we concluded the references to the price match scheme in the ads were not verifiable and therefore breached the Code.

On this point TV ad (a) breached BCAP Code rule  3.35 3.35 Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and press ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  3.35 3.35 Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).

3. Not upheld

We considered the requirement of the minimum £15 spend was material information which needed to be clearly stated in the ad, such as in on-screen text. We noted the on-screen text in ad (a) included “Minimum £15 spend including one comparable product”. The text appeared on screen for 20 seconds of the 30-second ad and was on screen whilst Dec explained the Match & More card. Furthermore, we noted the text itself was easily read both in text size and font style and that the minimum spend requirement was the first piece of information in on-screen text. We therefore concluded that the minimum £15 spend requirement per shop was made clear and that ad (a) was unlikely to mislead.

On this point we investigated TV ad (a) under BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.2 3.2 Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.  (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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  3.10 3.10 Advertisements 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.

4. Not upheld

We considered that ad (a) made clear that it was the Match & More card that allowed the price comparison and that non-card holders would not have their shopping automatically price matched. We also considered consumers would understand that, as with other well-known supermarket campaigns, any differences in prices would not affect the price paid at that till and would be awarded after the initial transaction. On-screen text on TV ad (a) and small print on pages 2, 3 and 4 of press ad (b) included "Minimum £15 spend including one comparable product. Prices matched at Asda.com, Tesco.com, Sainsburys.co.uk and in store at Aldi and Lidl. Difference given in points on your Match & More card. Maximum 10,000 points per shop”. The body copy of press ad (b) also stated “And if you could have paid less, we’ll automatically give you the difference in points on your Match & More card at the checkout. The point become £’s off your shopping bill”. Whilst ad (a) did not specifically state that the points accrued on the card needed to be spent in store we considered viewers would understand that those points could only be used in store and redeemed against future purchases.

We noted the £5 minimum worth of accrued points before redemption was available was a condition that was not referenced in TV ad (a). However, we considered the condition was unlikely to affect a transactional decision to find out more about the Match & More card, either in store or online, and considered it would be sufficient for that information to be provided elsewhere providing consumers were made aware of it. Furthermore, we considered that because the card was likely to appeal to regular customers, the requirement to accrue a minimum number of points was unlikely to affect a decision to apply for the card. We noted the information about the scheme on the Morrisons’ website included this requirement. We therefore considered that the ads made clear the significant conditions of the Match & More promotion that they were unlikely to mislead on that basis.

On this point we investigated TV ad (a) under BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.    3.2 3.2 Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.  (Misleading advertising),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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  3.10 3.10 Advertisements 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. We also investigated press ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.  and  3.10 3.10 Advertisements 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.

5. Not upheld

We considered TV ad (a) made clear that the price match would take place across an entire shop of comparable items because of Dec’s reference to the “comparable grocery shop”. We considered viewers would understand the price match to mean that an entire shop of comparable items would be compared with competitor supermarkets and if the total shop was cheaper elsewhere, the difference would be awarded as points. We considered they would therefore understand that the total price of comparable items would include instances where the competitor items were both cheaper and more expensive and that the price comparison of the total shop took these differences into account and did not accrue the difference in individual items. We therefore concluded the ad made clear that points were awarded across all comparable items in grocery shop and not only on individual items where it would have been cheaper elsewhere and was unlikely to mislead on that basis.

On this point we investigated TV ad (a) under BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.2 3.2 Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.  (Misleading advertising),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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  3.10 3.10 Advertisements 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

We told Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc not to repeat the ads until they had ensured that they provided consumers (and competitors) with a sufficient method to verify the references to the price-match scheme. We told them to ensure that the methodology which would enable consumers to ascertain readily the basis on which Morrisons made their comparisons in respect of each supermarket was clearly accessible via their website as referenced in the ads (for example, on the ‘Match & More’ home page) and contained sufficient information. We also told them to ensure that they clearly signposted how consumers who had shopped with them could readily obtain specific details of what products at what competitors had been compared and at what prices to explain how the points total had been calculated (for example, by signposting this on the ‘Match & More’ home page).

BCAP Code

3.1     3.10     3.2     3.33     3.34     3.35     3.39     3.9    

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.10     3.3     3.33     3.34     3.35     3.39     3.7     3.9    

More on