Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for Windsor Mint, seen on 10 April 2018, promoted a coin commemorating Queen Elizabeth II’s Sapphire Jubilee, which featured an image of the Queen and the text “One Crown”. The voice-over stated, “This year, Queen Elizabeth the Second, the first monarch ever in British history to reign over 65 years, celebrates her sapphire coronation jubilee. Order now your official Crown coin, fully layered with pure 24 carat gold and refined with the most precious coin metal, platinum. Featuring a platinum portrait of Her Majesty the Queen. This strictly limited edition is available postage free at the special price of £9.95 with an over 80% saving on our regular issue price of £56.00.”
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim that the coin was an “official crown coin” was misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. the “was” price of £56.00 and the “over 80% saving” claim were misleading, because they understood that the coin had not previously been sold at that price.
Response
1. Windsor Mint said that the coin was issued by HM Government of Gibraltar and because the term “official” related to an authority or public body, they considered the term “official” was acceptable to use for the coin. They said that the coins issued by a government of a country were guaranteed by that country and classed as legal tender in the issuing country whether it was a commemorative coin or a circulating coin.
Clearcast said that the coin had been issued by the Government of Gibraltar and was engraved “Gibraltar 2017” which was visible in the ad. The coin was issued by an official government body to commemorate 100 years of the House of Windsor and the Queen’s Sapphire Coronation Jubilee, which made it “official”. The coin was not in circulation but was legal tender, which was similar to other commemorative coins that were issued as sentimental keepsakes. Clearcast stated that they understood that as legal tender, there was no need for permission to be obtained from the Lord Chamberlain’s office to feature the Queen’s head on the face of the coin.
2. Windsor Mint clarified that the coin was part of a collection. They said that they would normally offer a coin at an introductory special price. They confirmed that the individual price of a coin was £56 and the price was reduced to £49.95 for customers who were active subscribers, which meant they were eligible for a personal discount. They said that due to the limited amount of coins available they had offered the coins at a special subsidised price to attract wider interest to their existing customers. Their subscribers would receive the first offer before individual buyers and therefore the coin was sold, on average, at the price of £49.95.
They provided a spreadsheet setting out details of the number of coins sold at a “special offer” price or a “regular” price since January 2018. They also provided a further breakdown detailing the price points the coin was sold at over a six-month period before the ad was seen.
Clearcast understood that the coin had been offered previously at the regular price of £56 based on a declaration that they had received from the advertiser confirming that the coin had been sold at a higher price and that the offer had run from 12 March 2018 until 30 June 2018. Clearcast also said that the coin had previously been offered at a lower introductory price in 2017, for which they had received signed documentary evidence, and therefore they had no reason to doubt the 80% savings claim.
Assessment
1.Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim “official crown coin” to mean that the coin was issued by an authorised body and was legal tender in the UK. The ad presented the coin engraved with the image of Queen Elizabeth II and it was described throughout as an “official crown coin”. We understood that the coin was issued by the government of Gibraltar and was legal tender in Gibraltar. However, we considered that the text ‘GIBRALTAR’ which appeared on the coin was likely to be overlooked by most viewers. We therefore concluded that the presentation of the coin as an “official crown coin” was misleading.
On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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 3.47 3.47 Advertisements must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Advertisements must not claim that the advertiser (or any other entity referred to in the advertisement), the advertisement or the advertised product or service has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any person or body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. (Endorsements and testimonials)
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the savings claim of 80% to represent a genuine saving against the usual selling price of the product at the time the ad appeared.
Windsor Mint provided two sets of pricing data which indicated that from January to May 2018, a third of the Elizabeth II coins sold were at a “regular price” although it was not specified what the “regular” price was. We noted from an additional set of sales data that in the six-month period prior to the ad being seen, only two units were sold at the price of £56. We also understood that when the coin was offered as part of a collection or purchased by members with a subscription, a discount was applied which meant that it was usually sold at £49.95 rather than £56. We therefore considered that the higher price of £56 was not the usual selling price of the coin. We had not seen evidence that the savings claim represented a genuine saving against the usual selling price of the product, because of that we therefore concluded the savings claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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 3.18 3.18 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product or service depicted in the advertisement. (Prices).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Windsor Mint to ensure that they did not mislead consumers when using the term “official crown coin” and that future savings claims did not misleadingly imply savings against the usual selling price of the product.
