These reports are case summaries of complaints which appeared to raise issues of substance in relation to the interpretation of the ITC Advertising Standards Code. Summary statistics of non-substantive complaints can be found in the full reports which are obtainable from the ITC.
Comet - Sales Prices
Complaint from: 1 competitor & 1 viewer
Background
An advertisement for Comet showed a man - in this case, Father Christmas - working in front of an Acer PC. His wife was amazed at the price he had paid - £599.95 - and asked whether he had got it in a sale. Father Christmas replied "No, I don't believe in sales", after which a voice over said "Prices that will always beat sale prices? That's Comet Sense". On-screen text said "We'll always beat sale prices" and "Backed by the Comet price guarantee".
Issue
A competitor - Dixons – complained that Comet only reduced its prices when it became aware that a competitor was charging less. There would, therefore, be times when Comet was not aware of a competitor's lower price and so would not be beating it.
Assessment
Comet's solicitors said that the claim "we'll always beat sale prices" would be substantiated in the majority of cases by Comet's price checking policy, which was to check competitors' prices and lower Comet's accordingly. If a customer had paid less elsewhere, Comet would refund the difference to the customer under the terms of Comet's price guarantee.
The BACC considered that the advertising established sufficiently clearly that the price claims were made in the context of Comet's price policy and guarantee, and that it was an accepted part of such offers that there would be a time delay between price adjustments.
The ITC noted the reference to Comet's price guarantee, but considered that without further explanation the claim "we'll always beat sale prices" came across to viewers as an assurance that all Comet's prices were already below those of its competitors. Although Comet would refund the difference if customers could have paid less elsewhere, the ITC did not judge that the need for them to check competitors' prices came across sufficiently clearly. It agreed that the advertising was misleading and required it not to be shown again in its present form.
Conclusion
Complaints upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.3
|