Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
A ‘basket of goods’ comparison involves a retailer comparing a number of items that a consumer might buy in a shopping visit to their store against a similar basket of goods bought at a rival store.
The ASA has considered that a shopping basket survey, which would always be restricted to a selection of products, is a valid means of comparing the price performance of retailers.
Marketers comparing shopping baskets should compare a fair and truly representative selection of goods and not skew the comparison to give themselves an artificial advantage, for example, by including an untypically high number of high-priced products that were substantially cheaper than their competitors' equivalents. The products in a basket should be products typically bought by shoppers in a combination that reflects customers' normal shopping habits. (Tesco Stores Ltd, 20 August 2008, and ASDA Stores Ltd, 22 February 2006). In 2008, the ASA upheld a complaint about an ad that featured a trolley of goods and described it as “your weekly shop”. Because the advertiser did not prove that the products that comprised the trolley used for comparison were representative of a typical “weekly shop”, the ASA told the advertiser not to describe the selection of goods in that way (ASDA Stores Ltd, 21 May 2008).
Unless they operate a national pricing policy and prices do not vary depending on local or regional competitor activity, marketers should state where and when surveys featured in their marketing communications were carried out (ASDA Stores Ltd, 14 January 2009, and J Sainsbury, 25 June 2003).
Marketers should, as far as is reasonably possible compare products of the same, or very similar, quality, for example, own-brand with own-brand, brand with brand and premium with premium (B&Q plc, 10 September 2008), compare like sizes of products and state clearly if prices featured in comparisons are promotional prices (Woolworths plc, 26 March 2003, ASDA Stores Ltd, 22 February 2006). The ASA has criticised many marketers for not making clear that they have used promotional prices in their comparison (Boots UK Ltd, 22 October 2008). The ASA considered that one marketer’s footnote “Includes Tesco products on promotion”, did not negate the misleading impression given by the headline (Tesco Stores Ltd, 20 August 2008).
Savings claims such as ''We're cheaper than Y'', “Why pay more at Y” or similar, can imply that the marketer’s prices are on average lower than their competitors across their product range; marketers should take care to ensure that such claims are supported by comprehensive comparative evidence or that the meaning of their claim is stated clearly (Tesco Stores Ltd, 20 August 2008 and ASDA Stores Ltd, 14 March 2007).
Comparisons with named or identifiable competitors or competitive goods should be verifiable. That means marketers should provide the data on which the comparison is made so that readers of the ad can verify the comparison (ASDA Stores Ltd, 14 January 2009). See ‘Comparisons: Verifiability’.
Some years ago, CAP published a Help Note on Retailers’ Price Comparisons to help the industry. Revised since, it gives advice on the various factors that marketers must consider, including: truthful presentation and substantiation, verifiability, fair comparisons, the basis of comparisons, like classes of goods, like-priced goods, the locality of stores chosen, the number of items selected and timing.
When making a price comparison, marketers should take account of their competitors’ pricing policy (especially their response to price-led advertising), the speed with which changes in price are likely to occur and the shelf-life of the media they choose to use. Marketers should not state or imply that prices, and therefore savings, are valid for longer than they are.
Marketers might want to seek legal advice.
See 'Comparisons: General' and ‘Comparisons: Verifiability’.
Last modified : 05 August 2010