Advertisment
Online offers on the eir website stated:
Offer 1:
“Online Exclusive: €100 Cashback
Back to school bonus. Get up to €100 cashback when you order online today.”
A countdown clock was included in the advertisement detailing the remaining days, hours and minutes left in the offer.
“16 Days 13 Hours 40 Minutes order by 20/09/2016”
Offer 2:
“Online Exclusive: Free Premier League Jersey
07 Days 15 Hours 34 Minutes order by 23/08/2016
FREE Premier League Jersey when you switch to eir online.”
Offer 3:
“Online Exclusive: Free Premier League Jersey
05 Days 16 Hours 02 Minutes order by 31/08/2016
FREE Premier League Jersey when you switch to eir online.”
Various examples of similar offers that were run and then extended were provided by the complainant for dates in 2015 and early 2016.
Complaint
The complainant considered that the advertisements showed a consistent extending of time limiting offers which he considered was in breach of the Code.
Response
In reply the advertisers stated that it was proving difficult for them to respond in view of the fact that the individuals who were responsible for the provision and management of the online offers no longer worked for eir and they therefore had difficulties sourcing information.
They disputed that the advertising was in breach of the Code and advised that the offers ran for a short period of time with a clearly defined end date and the terms and conditions for each of the promotions would have reflected this. They said that for the vast majority of the time limited offers, their understanding was that they normally ran for a seven day period within a calendar month. They said that when an offer was successful and also when an offer has not met its targets, the time limited offer would be repeated at a later date.
In regards to Offers 2 and 3 they said that they were time limited offers between the 10th and 31st of August and these dates had been shown in the terms and conditions for the offer.
In regards to the examples of similar offers from 2015 and early 2016 that the complainant had provided, they said that a €100 cashback offer had run in both January and February of 2016 and that the terms and conditions for the offer clearly showed that they were time limited offers between the dates advertised.
Another example provided was for a ‘Samsung Tablet’ offer. They said that they had been able to locate terms and conditions for a period between 1st and 7th December 2015 which clearly called out that the offer was a time limited offer of 1 week. They said that the first advertisement in this offer commenced in early November 2015 and was then extended to the 16th of November and again to 26th November 2015. They said that two of the online pages provided by the complainant clearly stated that the offer had been extended and therefore they did not consider that it was misleading. They considered that this suggested that the offer was initially for a week and was then extended for two weeks and then a new offer was advertised the following week.
They also referred to a €50 cashback offer which ran from 16th September 2015 to 31st December 2015 and they understood that during this period a number of week long time limited offers were run by their digital team to promote the cashback offer.
They said that it was their view that where an offer was proving to be successful they should be entitled to extend it so that other consumers could avail of the offer and the company could increase its sales. They said that going forward where an offer was extended they were minded to refer to “popular demand”. They disagreed, however, with the complainant that the time limited offers were the same offer which was simply being continually extended as it was clear from the terms and conditions that the offers were limited in time, notwithstanding that they may have been repeated a month later.
Further Information:
The Executive referred the advertiser to Section 5.32 of the Code and asked for their comments.
The advertisers apologised for the delay in replying. They said that the end date of all their online exclusive offers was also stated, either on the banner or the offer details page attached to the advertising banner and that it was never their intention to mislead customers in any way in relation to these offers.
They said that only one of the online offers appeared to have been extended, in 2015, and that they had since agreed a process to ensure that this did not re-occur unless it was unavoidable.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Committee noted that in each offer, including the repeated offers, an ‘order by’ date had been included. A sense of urgency was in their view created by the countdown clock. The Committee noted the Code requirement that closing dates should not be changed unless “circumstances outside the reasonable control of the promoters make it unavoidable” and they welcomed the processes that the advertiser has put in place to comply with this requirement. The Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Section 5.32 of the Code.
Action Required:
The Committee requested the advertisers not to extend time limited offers unless the circumstances made the extension unavoidable.
