The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a social media advert for Nike trainers, citing misleading content.
- The advert appeared on the platform formerly known as Twitter, advertising Nike trainers for £26 with limitations on sizes.
- Complaints were upheld due to the ad’s failure to clarify that the trainers were meant for older children or limited adult sizes.
- Both Nike Retail and The Sole Supplier acknowledged the commercial relationship but defended the ad by highlighting consumer assumptions.
- The ASA concluded the advert’s omission of material information was misleading and advised against future appearance in similar form.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has taken action against a social media advert promoting Nike trainers priced at £26, deeming it misleading. The advertisement was run by The Sole Supplier on a platform previously called Twitter. It presented an image of Nike trainers with a caption claiming availability at a significant discount. However, the reality was that these discounted prices were confined to a limited range of UK shoe sizes, specifically sizes 3-6.
During the investigation, it was confirmed by Nike Retail that they maintained a contractual relationship with The Sole Supplier, who earned commissions from sales driven by such advertisements. This commercial relationship allowed The Sole Supplier to promote Nike products without seeking prior approval from Nike. Nevertheless, there was an explicit obligation for The Sole Supplier to adhere to pertinent advertising regulations, including the CAP Code applicable in the UK.
Nike contended that because the commission model was profit-oriented concerning sales rather than clicks, it mitigated the risk of misleading advertisements intending to capture consumer attention superficially. Nike expressed the opinion that the presence of no consumer complaints substantiated the belief that individuals did not find the advertisement misleading.
The Sole Supplier argued that the advertisement directed users to detailed information about the product, including size availability, thereby implying that consumers would naturally expect some limitations regarding promotional offers. Despite the defence, the ASA found the advertisement insufficiently informative. The simplicity of the image and the accompanying text, including the price and product brand, did not adequately communicate the restrictions on sizing or intended audience.
The ASA, therefore, determined that the average consumer would likely assume the product was intended for a wider adult audience unless otherwise indicated. The advert’s combination of price and minimal textual cues, enhanced by the use of an emoji, reinforced the impression of being suitable for adults, leading to the conclusion that it misled consumers by omission.
In its ruling, the ASA declared that the advertisement should not be repeated in its present form and directed Nike Retail along with The Sole Supplier to ensure future advertisements clearly convey any material information that could influence a consumer’s purchasing decision, particularly those involving size limitations.
The ASA’s ruling underscores the importance of clear and transparent advertising, ensuring consumers are aware of all pertinent product limitations.
