Advertisment
Radio Advertising:
“Nissan has a new 181 offer that’ll make you think twice about buying a new car from anyone else. Only with Nissan, you get 2 new cars for the price of one. Yes, you heard me right – that’s two new cars for the price of one.
Buy a selected 181 Nissan and we’ll replace it with a 191 Nissan for free! But hurry, this is a limited offer. Contact your local Nissan dealer today.
Visit nissan.ie for terms and conditions.
Nissan – innovation that excites.”
Television Advertisement:
Various images of a Nissan Qashqai were featured on screen. The number 181 was featured above one Qashqai which then flips around to show another car with the number 191 above it. Various other Nissan models are then shown with both the numbers 181 and 191 above them.
“Can’t decide whether to get the new car this year or next? Buy a selected 181 Nissan and we’ll swap it for a 191 Nissan for free. That’s two new cars for the price of one.
But hurry, this is a limited offer. Contact your local Nissan dealer today.”
On screen text stated: “Buy a 181 Nissan and we’ll swap it with a 191 for free. NISSAN – innovation that excites”
Small print on screen stated:
“191 model must be the same as 181 & registered in 12 months of first purchase. Participating dealers only. 20000km fair usage applies. T&C’s apply. Register by & offer ends 31/03/18.”
Nissan.ie Website – Two For One Offer Page:
“Two For One Offer
Can’t decide whether to buy a new car this year or next?
At Nissan you can have the best of both. Only with Nissan, you can buy two new cars for the price of one.
If you purchase the All New Qashqai, Pulsar, Juke or the All New Micra for 181 Nissan this year, we’ll replace it with a 191 Nissan next year for FREE! There isn’t any other 181 offer on the market that even comes close to being such amazing value.
But this is a limited offer so don’t miss out. To find out more about our 2 for 1 Offer, call into your local Nissan dealership and we’ll be happy to talk you through the offer and answer any of your questions.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
-Two for the price of one offer is available on all New model Qashqai, Pulsar, Juke & New model Micra. Upgrade applies to all New Micra, Juke, Pulsar & New Qashqai models registered from 1st January 2018 until 31st March 2018. All other Nissan models are specifically excluded from the Offer.
-Annual mileage allowance of 20,000kms applies.
-Excess mileage will be charged at 15 cent per KM.
-Upgrade applies to Cash and AIB Finance retail sales only and is subject to validation and audit.
-All 2019 vehicles must be registered within 12 months of the first registration in 2018.
-Both cars must be registered to the same customer.
-Replacement models must be the identical variant and grade. If specifications for a model changes, the closest equivalent model will be supplied.
-If the customer fails to keep up their repayments on car 1 or for any other reason the bank refuses to complete a transfer, then the 2 for 1 deal is deemed null and void.
-Accessories are not included in this offer.
-Customers can add Accessories to Car 1 but these will not be included free of charge on Car 2.
-This is a mutually exclusive offer and cannot be combined with any other offer.
-Available at participating dealers only.
-Customer pays RRP plus dealer and delivery related charges. Offer ends 31/12/2017.
-Nissan guarantees no price increases on the ex-VAT and VRT price of the second car in 2019.
-Any increases due to changes in Government taxation or CO2 ratings must be paid for by the customer.
-Offer includes 48 months Nissan pan-European Manufacturer’s Warranty and Roadside Assist.
-Customer has the option to change car colour in 2019 pending stock availability.
-Customer has the option to upgrade to a higher specification model within the same range in 2019 by paying the difference in Retail Price between the 2018 car and the chosen 2019 model.
-Two for One is a mutually exclusive, limited offer from Nissan Ireland and may be withdrawn at any time.”
Complaint
Issue 1:
Six complaints were received regarding the advertising campaign. The complainants considered that the headline offer “get 2 new cars for the price of 1” was misleading as it implied that purchasers would have two cars when the offer involved the exchange of the car purchased in 2018 with a new model in 2019.
Issue 2:
One complainant also objected to the reference on the website to an ‘upgrade’ which they considered implied a better specification than the model purchased, however, the replacement car had to be the exact same specification.
Issue 3:
Another complainant went to their local dealer to enquire about the offer using his current Nissan as a trade in. He received two quotations from the dealer, one availing of the “2 cars for the price of 1” deal and one for a straight purchase with his trade in. As the quotation he received for the “2 cars for the price of 1” deal was €2,500 more expensive than the deal without this offer, he considered the claim “2 cars for the price of 1” was misleading.
Response
Issue 1:
Nissan Ireland stated that the claims made in their advertising were true, accurate and were not ambiguous, particularly when the radio and television advertisements were listened to or viewed in their entirety. They said that the crux of the offer was stated clearly in the voiceover in both their radio and television copy. They said that the following applied to both the radio and television spots;
• If a consumer purchases a selected 181 model they pay for adding the cost of any optional extras – Car 1.
• A year later, their 181 model will be swapped for the equivalent 191 model and no payment will be required (save for any additional optional extras that may be ordered) – Car 2.
• Therefore, in the period of the offer, they will have received two new cars from the dealership and will only have paid for one.
• The car ownership was consecutive and not concurrent. They said that while they play upon the “two cars for the price of one theme”, it was made very clear in both radio and television advertisements that consecutive ownership was the case and the times the buyer would receive the vehicles.
They said that the claim in their radio advertisement, “Only with Nissan you get two new cars for the price of one” was correct, buyers get two new cars during the time period of the offer, but only pay for one. They said that the radio advertisement had also stated in clear and unambiguous language how the offer worked, when the buyer would own the car and that therefore, possession of the cars was consecutive rather than concurrent. They believed that it was abundantly clear in the radio advertisement that the second car was a replacement that would be delivered as a 191 registration and that the qualifying statement, “we’ll replace it with a 191 Nissan for free” used in all forms of advertising for this offer clearly communicated that the consumer would not receive two new cars at the same time, the second car was a replacement for the first car.
In regards to the television advertisement, they said that it began by explaining how the offer worked and that had also been stated in the voiceover and by onscreen graphics. They said that the latter part of the voiceover had stated “that’s two cars for the price of one” which they considered qualified the offer and was a logical follow through from the description of the offer.
They said that a new vehicle purchase was not usually an impulse purchase and all research suggested that the decision making process lasted on average between 3 – 6 months. They said that given the entry price to purchase a new vehicle, the decision to purchase would involve mature consideration by the buyer and the majority of purchase decisions would not be based solely on an advertisement. They said that they believed all advertising materials for the campaign had fully qualified the 2 for 1 offer messaging through inclusion of the qualifying statement “Buy a 181 Nissan and we’ll replace it with a 191 Nissan for free” and that all advertisements pointed the consumer towards their website to view the terms and conditions.
They said that they had engaged with copy clearance in advance and all scripts and visuals were cleared in advance of going on air.
Issue 2:
In regards to the use of the word “upgrade” at points 1, 4 and 18 in the terms and conditions they said that while unintentional, they believed that the term “upgrade” was not the best terminology in this context, however, they did not consider it was incorrect or misleading. They did, however, offer to replace the wording at point 1 and 4 of their terms and conditions. They considered that the use of the term ‘upgrade’ at point 18 was appropriate.
Issue 3:
Finally, in regards to the complaint concerning the trade in offer price for availing of the promotion, they said that the complainant appeared to be comparing two distinct offers of which one was the advertised offer. They said that all of their offers, including the “2 for 1” offer were based on a customer paying the full recommended retail price plus dealer and related charges for a vehicle as was set out in the terms and conditions on their website. They said that all of their offers were mutually exclusive as also set out in the terms. In regards to the value of the vehicle being traded in, they said that this was up to the selling dealer to value the vehicle independently and that trade-in values offered for vehicles were entirely at the discretion of the selling dealer and can vary from dealer to dealer.
They said that in some cases where a 2 for 1 offer was not being availed of, it was absolutely possible that a dealer might offer a differing allowance on a trade in vehicle but this was entirely at the discretion of the selling dealer and would be a mutually exclusive offer from any other consumer offer. They said that were a customer unhappy with a trade-in value offered by a selling dealer there was nothing to stop them seeking a more preferable trade in value for their car elsewhere and still availing of the 2 for 1 offer.
Conclusion
Complaints not upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaints and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1:
The Committee noted that all complainants considered that the statement “2 new cars for the price of 1” was misleading on the grounds that they expected to receive two cars rather than purchasing one and exchanging it for a new model after one year. The Committee reviewed the advertising, taking account of the provisions of the Code, particularly Section 2.4c. The Committee noted that, while the headline had referred to “2 new cars for the price of 1”, all advertisements in the campaign had clearly stated the terms of the offer that the first car would be replaced with a model in 2019. In the light of this the Committee did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code.
Complaints not upheld.
Issue 2:
The Committee acknowledged the advertisers’ offer to amend the reference to ‘Upgrade’ at points 1 and 4 of their terms and conditions of the offer.
In regards to the use of the term ‘upgrade’ the Committee considered that upgrade could not only apply to the individual model specifications of the car, but also to the year of manufacture and that the term ‘upgrade’ was commonly used in the motor industry when consumers where changing their car from an older model to a younger one. In the circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the use of the term ‘upgrade’ was in breach of the Code.
Complaint not upheld.
Issue 3:
The Committee noted that the advertised “2 for 1” offer terms had stated that it was mutually exclusive and could not be combined with any other offer, and that a customer must pay the recommended retail price for the car. They noted that the complainant had been provided with two trade in values, one for availing of the “2 for 1” deal where they would have to pay the full recommended retail price and another where they were quoted a higher value for their trade in vehicle. The Committee accepted that trade in values were at the discretion of the individual dealer and were not set by the manufacturer. Taking account of the above the Committee did not consider that the claim to replace a 181 model with a 191 model for free was in breach of the Code.
Complaint not upheld.
ACTION REQUIRED:
No further action required.
