Background
Summary of council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two ads for Currys PC World, seen in November 2020:
a. A TV ad promoted the LG OLED TV. A voiceover stated, “Get your LG OLED TV for half price, with a one-in-twenty chance to get your money back with Currys PC World.” At the same time, on-screen text was shown stating, “Get your LG OLED TV for half price” with an image of the LG TV and two “Which?” badges.
b. The website www.currys.co.uk, displayed the LG logo alongside the headline “Yesss! LG OLED TV for half price!”. Smaller text beneath stated “1-in-20 chance to win half your money back when you buy any LG OLED TV*. *T&Cs apply” with a “Shop now” button. An image of the product was shown to the right-hand side of the headline with a “Which? Best Buy” badge.
Issue
1. Ten complainants, who believed that the ad suggested that the TV was being sold at half price when they understood that consumers could only get the half the price back through the promotion, challenged whether ad (a) was misleading.
2. One complainant, who believed that the ad suggested that the TV was being sold at half price when they understood that consumers could only obtain half the price back through the promotion, challenged whether ad (b) was misleading.
Response
1. DSG Retail Ltd t/a Currys PC World believed that the accompanying voiceover made it clear to viewers that the ad was offering a chance to win their money back as opposed to an opportunity to buy the TV for half price. They explained that the voiceover and on-screen text stated “Get your” rather than “Get a”. Currys PC World believed that the phrase “Get your”, in that context, implied that the consumer had already purchased the television and had the chance to win half their money back after making the initial purchase. Currys PC World also stated that they provided further details in the on-screen text, which stated “GB Only, 18+, apply online 32-42 days after purchase. 1 entry per itemised receipt. Ends 08/12. T&Cs at www.curryshalfpriceLGTV.co.uk”. They added that the text was on the screen for a total of 10 seconds, which they believed gave viewers considerable opportunity to read the terms.
Clearcast felt that the voiceover sufficiently explained how viewers could obtain the television for half price. Clearcast believed that the word “with” linked the reduction in price to the 1-in-20 chance competition. Clearcast stated that at script stage they ensured that all clarifying factors followed immediately from the offer, to prevent viewers from being misled. Clearcast concluded that it was important that the sentence was taken in its entirety and the legally required superimposed text reinforced that it was a prize draw by explaining the conditions of the competition.
2. Currys PC World confirmed that the same mechanism applied to the website offer as to the TV offer; consumers would need to purchase the television for a chance to win half their money back when they entered the competition. Currys PC World added that the website banner was accompanied immediately by prominent text that stated “1-in-20 chance to win half your money back when you buy any LG OLED TV*. *T&Cs apply”. Currys PC World stated that, although that information was not included in the small print, it was made clear alongside the headline. Currys PC World also provided screenshots of the different click-through pages which were part of the promotion.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the word “get” in the voiceover claim “Get your LG OLED TV for half price” created a sense of certainty and suggested that viewers could purchase the product “for half price”. We considered that the on-screen text “Get your LG OLED TV for half price” further contributed to the impression that Currys PC World were offering the product, to all viewers, for half price. We considered that viewers were likely to interpret the claim “half price” to mean that the product could be purchased at half its original cost, rather than requiring a further action after the purchase. The second half of the voiceover claim stated “with a one-in-twenty chance to get your money back with Currys PC World”. We considered that the use of the word “with” created an ambiguous impression, as it could be interpreted by viewers as either explaining how to obtain the product for half price, or that the money back offer was a completely separate promotion alongside the half-price deal. We noted the presence of the superimposed text but did not consider that it was likely to sufficiently clarify the nature of the offer to viewers.
Overall, we considered that viewers were likely to understand from the ad that the product could be purchased at half price, and that viewers also had the opportunity to win their money back by entering the competition. However, we understood that Currys PC World were not selling the product for half price. Rather that viewers had the opportunity to win half their money back. Therefore, to have a chance to obtain the product for half price, viewers were first required to pay the full cost of the product. Because viewers were likely to understand that the product was being sold for half price, when that was not the case, we considered that the ad was misleading.
On that point the ad breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
In setting or revising any such standards, Ofcom must have regard, in particular and to such extent as appears to them to be relevant to the securing of the standards objectives, to each of these matters:
a) the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally, or in programmes of a particular description;
b) the likely size and composition of a potential audience for programmes included in television and radio services generally, or in television and radio services of a particular description;
c) the likely expectation of the audience as to the nature of a programme's content and the extent to which the nature of the programme's content can be brought to the attention of potential members of the audience;
d) the likelihood of persons who are unaware of the nature of the programme's content being unintentionally exposed, by their own actions, to that content;
e) the desirability of securing that the content of services identifies when there is a change affecting the nature of a service that is being watched or listened to and, in particular, a change that is relevant to the application of the standards set under this section...".
Section
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.
4).
(Misleading advertising) 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).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “Yesss! LG OLED TV for half price!” as meaning that the product was available at half price to all consumers. We further considered that the combination of that claim with the statement “1-in-20 chance to win half your money back when you buy any LG OLED TV” created an ambiguous impression. We considered that some consumers may have understood the claim as detailing the method to get the product for half price. Conversely, other consumers may have interpreted the claim as a separate and distinct offer for consumers to win half their money back in addition to the product being sold at half price. We understood that the offer worked in the same way as Ad (a). Therefore, we understood that the product was not half price and that after purchasing the product at its full price, consumers had the opportunity to win half their money back. In light of the above, we considered that the ad misleadingly suggested that the product was being sold for half price when that was not the case. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that point the ad breached 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
For advertisements that quote prices for an advertised product or service, material information [for the purposes of rule
3.2
3.2
In setting or revising any such standards, Ofcom must have regard, in particular and to such extent as appears to them to be relevant to the securing of the standards objectives, to each of these matters:
a) the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally, or in programmes of a particular description;
b) the likely size and composition of a potential audience for programmes included in television and radio services generally, or in television and radio services of a particular description;
c) the likely expectation of the audience as to the nature of a programme's content and the extent to which the nature of the programme's content can be brought to the attention of potential members of the audience;
d) the likelihood of persons who are unaware of the nature of the programme's content being unintentionally exposed, by their own actions, to that content;
e) the desirability of securing that the content of services identifies when there is a change affecting the nature of a service that is being watched or listened to and, in particular, a change that is relevant to the application of the standards set under this section...".
Section
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.
4).
includes:
(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.
(Qualification),
8.17
8.17
All marketing communications or other material referring to promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information is likely to mislead. Significant conditions or information may, depending on the circumstances, include:
and
8.17.1
8.17.1
How to participate
How to participate, including significant conditions and costs, and other major factors reasonably likely to influence consumers' decision or understanding about the promotion
(Significant conditions for promotions).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told DSG Retail Ltd t/a Currys PC World to ensure that they did not misleadingly imply that consumers were able to purchase a product for half price, if that was not the case.
BCAP Code
3.1 3.10 3.2 3.1 3.3 8.2 8.17 8.17.1 3.9
