Advertisment
The advertisement was a listing for the BRAVA Mandoline Vegetable Slicer. Several differently coloured mandolins were pictured showing the products different applications. Under these illustrative pictures there were several customer reviews, none of which rated the product under five stars.
Complaint
The complainant said that they ordered the product but what they received was an inferior imitation of what they had expected.
Response
The advertisers said that they are an online marketplace that worked with a range of ‘verified suppliers’. They said that they took feedback and compliance matters very seriously and that they were committed to ensuring that products and their descriptions on their website were accurate and transparent.
They said that they had sold a large amount of the product depicted in the complained about advertising without complaints about same. As a result of this complaint, they were going to review the relevant suppliers listing and fulfilment process to ensure shipped items matched the advertised specifications.
They said that they would be happy to assist the customer if they were to contact them again through their support channels.
Finally, they claimed that they were committed to upholding the ASA Code and to ensuring full compliance in their advertising and customer interactions.
Conclusion
Upheld:
The Independent Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Council considered the pictures of the advertised product and a picture supplied by the complainant of what they had received. They found that there were several key differences between the two. The product the complainant had received had a rounded handle on the top of the plunger used to depress the blade whereas the product in the advertising appeared to have a different handle.
The product received by the complainant also appeared to have a series of serrated holes under the blade which did not feature on the product in the advertising. The Council noted the product received by the complainant also seemed to have ragged edges whereas the advertised product had clean edges and looked to be a better-quality product.
The Council concluded that since the product received was substantially different to the one advertised, the advertising was therefore misleading and in breach of Code Sections 4.1 and 4.4.
Action Required:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.
