Advertisment
A product listing on the advertisers’ website depicted a pallet of firewood with the price €157/m³ highlighted in green over the product image.
The product description read:
Hardwood Firewood 1m³ –
400kg Kiln Dried (4 Row) Pallet
Now: 249.00
Complaint
The complainant considered the advertising misleading on the basis that the advertisement displayed a price per cubic metre (m³) in the top corner of the product image that did not match the price charged per cubic meter of the product.
The complainant believed this created a misleading impression of a lower price per m³ than what was actually being charged. They expressed concerned that some customers may be unable to calculate or verify the true cost of product and might be misled into thinking they were getting a better deal than they really were.
Response
The advertisers stated that their advertising was directed at a general consumer audience and used standard terminology commonly employed across the solid fuel and firewood sectors in both Ireland and the UK. They stated that their presentation of product information was not intended to mislead but rather aimed to provide transparency regarding the difference between a stacked cubic metre (the volume of the pallet as shipped) and a loose cubic metre (the equivalent volume when the logs are unstacked).
The advertisers stated that the product in question was a pallet of kiln-dried hardwood logs, advertised at the time for €249 for a 1m³ stacked pallet.
They stated that in the product image, they displayed a comparative €/m³ price of €157 for the product. They advised that this figure referred to the equivalent price when calculated on a loose cubic metre basis, using the conversion rate of 1m³ stacked = 1.59m³ loose.
They stated that this conversion was clearly explained immediately below the product name in the “Key Facts” section and explained below as:
Stacked m³ = 1m³
Loose m³ = 1.59m³
Total Weight = 400kg
They advised that as a result, consumers were provided with both the retail price of the stacked pallet (€249), and the effective equivalent loose cubic metre price (€157/m³).
The advertisers stated that this dual presentation was consistent with industry practice and helped customers compare between stacked pallets and loose log suppliers. They stated that it ensured for greater transparency, not less, by allowing like-for-like price comparisons across different suppliers and formats.
The advertisers said that the presentation of their pricing was not misleading and stated that both figures listed were factually accurate and clearly contextualised.
They explained that the product title and price showed consumers exactly what they would pay (€249 for a 1m³ stacked pallet), while the per-cubic-metre equivalent (€157/m³ loose) was included for comparative purposes and explained in the “Key Facts” section beside to the image.
They considered that their advertising complied with the ASA Code requirement that any price stated in a marketing communication must relate to the product depicted or specified.
They stated the principal price (€249.00) always directly related to the product depicted (a 1m³ stacked pallet) and was displayed as the headline price, showing the customer exactly what they would pay.
They further stated that the €/m³ loose equivalent was not presented as the retail price of the depicted product and clearly labelled and explained as a secondary contextual measure. They stated that its purpose was to assist customers in making like-for-like comparisons with loose-log suppliers, thereby enhancing transparency and aiding in their decision making.
In conclusion, that advertisers stated that they recognised the importance of ensuring absolute clarity and had reviewed their website presentation to ensure that the €/m³ price is consistently positioned as a secondary, explanatory figure. They also added the word “loose” to this figure so that it could not be misconstrued as the retail price of the depicted stacked pallet.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Council noted that the images used in the advertising were those of the stacked product, the product for sale. Superimposed on each image, was a price per m3, with no indication that this was not the price per m3 for the product depicted in the advertisement.
The Council noted that text outside of the image included a “Key Facts” section which explained the m3 for both stacked and loose equivalents for the weight that was being sold.
Notwithstanding this additional information, the Council considered that the inclusion of the price per m³ loose, over an image of the product stacked, without clear signposting to explain the inclusion of this price, had the potential to mislead consumers about the cost per m3 of the advertised product. The Council therefore considered the advertising in breach of Code Sections 4.1 and 4.4.
Action Required:
As the advertisement has been amended, no further action required.
