The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has censured Debenhams after investigating a complaint regarding a social media advertisement. The ad suggested up to 60% discounts across various categories, but these claims were found misleading.
- A Facebook ad for Debenhams caught the attention of a member of the public who could not find the advertised discounts on all the featured products. This led to a formal complaint to the ASA.
- The ASA’s investigation revealed that Debenhams could not provide the pricing history for the advertised products to substantiate the discounts.
- Debenhams acknowledged that third-party suppliers control their pricing, making it difficult to verify discount claims, a stance the ASA found unsatisfactory.
- The advertisement was ultimately banned, and ASA reiterated its guidelines, emphasising the need for clear and substantiated claims in advertisements.
On 9 March 2024, a paid Facebook advertisement from Debenhams prompted a member of the public to raise concerns with the ASA, the UK’s advertising regulator. The advertisement proclaimed, ‘Step into spring with up to 60% off fashion, home and beauty at Debenhams.’ Beneath this were images of various products, each marked with ‘up to 60% off,’ along with a link to ‘shop now’.
Upon investigation, it was found that not all items featured in the advertisement were offered at the discount rate claimed. This discrepancy led the ASA to determine that the ad could mislead consumers into believing all featured products were part of the 60% discount offer.
The ASA’s inability to obtain comprehensive pricing histories from Debenhams prevented any verification of the usual selling prices for the products in question. Debenhams explained that the pricing was primarily managed by third-party suppliers who might not participate in all promotions.
Acknowledging the complaint, Debenhams stated their internal procedures would be revised to ensure future adherence to the ASA’s Code of Non-broadcast Advertising (CAP Code). They emphasised that third-party supplier pricing was beyond their direct control.
Concluding the investigation, the ASA described the ad as ‘misleading’ and in breach of their advertising code. An ASA spokesperson remarked, ‘Our rules are clear, ads must not be misleading. Companies must be able to back up any saving claims they make.’ They further stated that while social media is a potent tool for reaching consumers, clarity and accuracy in advertising are imperative.
This case highlights the importance of accountability and transparency in advertising to maintain consumer trust.
