Superdrug said that it had used a company, Compability, to collect pricing data, but that there were no receipts or pieces of documentary evidence to back up the price claims.
"Because they were unable to verify the prices on which the comparison was made, we concluded that Superdrug had not substantiated the claim '960 cheaper at Superdrug … 84 the same price … 4 cheaper at Boots'," said the ruling.
The ASA also found that the choice of products made by Superdrug was misleading. "We considered that a number of the products Superdrug had used in the comparison, such as snack food lines, film and battery products and magazines, were not 'health and beauty' products, and that some products, such as electrical beauty products and fragrances were unlikely to be viewed as 'everyday' products. Because Superdrug had not provided a rationale for their selection of 'everyday health and beauty products' to compare with Boots and because some products included in the comparison were unlikely to be considered as everyday health or beauty products by consumers, we concluded that the comparison was misleading," it said.
The adverts were also criticised by the ASA because of the three and four week lags between the gathering of the pricing data and the publishing of the two ads. "[Because of] the relative speed with which prices in the retail sector changed, the comparison was misleading because it was not based on the most up-to-date data," said the ASA.
Have you read these related articles?
Newsletter:
