Ad description
A TV ad for carwow, a car finding service, seen on 7 August 2015 stated, "What can seem revolutionary is often just the next step forward. Why didn't we do it that way before? Because nobody thought of it. Just like nobody thought of buying cars the other way around. The carwow way around. You pick the car you'd like. Exactly how you'd like it. Then some of the best car dealers in Britain compete over you ... carwow, the way forward".
Issue
Autoebid Ltd challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that carwow was the first to offer the advertised service, because they had been operating a similar scheme for 12 years.
Response
Digital Blurb Ltd t/a carwow believed their customer experience and business model were not comparable with the service operated by Autoebid. They explained that customers entered details of the car and specifications they wanted and they provided detailed information about dealer’s pricing, location and dealer reviews based on customer ratings allowing the customer to choose the dealer and the offer that was best for them. The service was free for car buyers, and customers were under no obligation to buy the vehicles offered to them.
carwow said Autoebid charged customers a finder’s fee. They understood that once Autoebid received car details and the price a customer was willing to pay, they contacted dealers in a ‘reverse auction’ to see who would be willing to match the target price. The details of the dealer offering the cheapest price would then be passed on to the customer, who could accept or reject the offer. If accepted, the dealer would then contact the customer. carwow believed that Autoebid acted as a broker, standing between the car buyer and dealer, whereas carwow only introduced the two parties.
carwow said Autoebid customers did not have the option to choose the dealer they wanted to buy from and the vehicle offered was based on price alone, whereas they offered customers the best price, the closest located dealers and highest rated companies within carwow’s network of dealers. They said Autoebid’s star ratings were based on operational factors such as number of employees and trading years, while their own rating was based on reviews from customers’ experiences with the dealers.
Clearcast said, because of the claims in the ad such as the service being “revolutionary”, they sought clarification from carwow that no other company, currently or previously, offered the same service. They said they received two assurances from the advertiser and believed that carwow had researched the matter and were the first to offer the advertised service. On that basis they approved the ad.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that both carwow and Autoebid searched car dealers for vehicles based on specific criteria supplied by a customer and then provided the customer with the best matched results. We noted there were differences in approach, with carwow providing a selection of options to choose from, while Autoebid presented the offer they believed best fitted the customer’s request. The information provided by carwow was based on price, location and dealer rating, whereas Autoebid concentrated on the price the customer had specified, although clients were still able to select a dealer based on location, supplier profiles and customer reviews. Autoebid also charged the customer a fee, but carwow charged the car dealer instead.
We noted the ad gave the impression that the way carwow operated was innovative and unique, but we understood that Autoebid had been providing the same service since 2003. Although we acknowledged the differences in how the two companies provided information to customers, we nonetheless considered that the basic business model was the same – consumers stated the type of car and price they were willing to pay, dealers responded with their best offer and that information would be passed on to the customer. We therefore concluded that, because carwow were not the first or only business to offer such a service, the ad was likely to mislead viewers.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Substantiation) and 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. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told carwow not to claim that they were the first or only company to offer the advertised service.
