Household

The advertisement was seen on Facebook as a sponsored post and featured text stating:

“Worrying about constant changes in prices? Relax with Network Security! Unlike our competitors who raised their prices, we’ve reduced ours to make security accessible to everyone.”

An image included also featured text stating, “Don’t get weighed down by high prices! Choose Network Security and save today.” A graph was depicted with a white line on the rise for the year 2022 representing ‘other service provider prices’ and an orange line steadily declining from 2016 to its lowest point in 2022 representing ‘Network Security’ prices.

The complainant considered the advertising to be misleading as they said that there was no evidence shown which demonstrated that other service providers had increased their prices nor that the advertisers had lowered theirs for the same period.

The advertisers initially reverted and said that they did not consider that the advertising was misleading or that it exploited the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of customers but, on the contrary, that the advertising had alerted customers correctly to the market.

The advertisers said they were satisfied that in line with the Code, the comparisons within the advertising were fair and did not give rise to the likelihood of a consumer being misled. They said they were satisfied that they could support the claim that their product was superior to others and that their marketing communication did not attack, discredit or denigrate other businesses or their products. They said that on the contrary, their marketing communication set out facts.

The advertisers said they could provide documentary evidence to substantiate all claims within the advertising and that they would happily forward this to the ASA if required. The ASA Executive did request this substantiation and the advertisers reverted explaining that they had undertaken independent market research and executed mystery shopping evaluations with their main competitors concerning pricing modifications. They said that these investigations permitted them to firmly assert that they had adhered to all guidelines without infringement.

The advertisers also pointed to a comparison platform website which they said highlighted their pricing analyses.

Complaint Upheld.

The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.

The Complaints Committee noted that detailed evidence, such as the research and results carried out as part of the independent market research and mystery shopping evaluations to support the claim in the advertising that their prices had lowered while other service providers’ prices had risen, had not been submitted to the ASA. In light of this, they concluded that the advertisement breached the Code at sections 4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10, 4.31, 4.32, and 4.33.

Action Required:

The advertisement must not reappear in its current form unless detailed substantiation can be provided to support the claims.