Ad description
A page on the Happy Beds website, www.happybeds.co.uk, an online retailer for beds, seen in August 2022, listed a child’s bed frame. The ad featured text that stated, “Milo Grey Wooden Mid Sleeper Kids Bed Frame – 3ft Single £845.98 NOW £469.99 Save £376”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the bed had not been sold at the original higher price, challenged whether the savings claim could be substantiated and was misleading.
Response
Happy Beds Ltd explained that the higher price was the RRP price provided by the supplier or manufacturer. They said they were an online retailer only and therefore the RRPs were not set by them. They supplied a number of links to other retailers with a similar RRP. They said the links confirmed that the before price was set by the manufacturer and not Happy Beds.
They also provided two anonymised receipts showing the product had been sold for £845.98 in February 2022 and May 2022.
Assessment
Upheld
Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold.
The ASA considered the evidence provided by Happy Beds that other retailers were displaying a similar RRP to the one that Happy Beds had on their listing. While there was some small variation in the RRP between retailers we acknowledged that in general the £845.98 price reflected the higher price on the other websites and was likely to be the RRP set by the manufacturer. Nevertheless, we noted that the price was discounted in all cases and none of the retailers were advertising the product for sale at the RRP.
Further to that we acknowledged that Happy Beds had provided two examples where the product had been sold by them at the RRP in 2022. However, to support savings claims against an RRP, we required evidence to show that £845.98 was the price at which the product was generally sold across a number of retailers.
The listing had made an explicit comparison with the RRP, stating that a consumer would save £376 on the RRP. However, because we had not seen sufficient evidence that the product had been generally sold at that price we concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleadingness), 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), 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) and 3.40 3.40 Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Happy Beds Ltd that future price comparisons in ads should not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Savings against RRPs should only be displayed if it can be evidenced that the product had been generally sold at that price.
