Misleading Price Promotion and Hidden Delivery Fees
- ASA bans Sports Direct ad for misleading customers about original price of a product
- Warning given to make delivery charges clearer for online customers
- Karrimor walking boots promoted at £37 with ‘original’ price shown as £84.99
- Complaint claimed crossed-out higher price was misleading
- Sports Direct argued it had possession of manufacturer’s price list and boots were sold at £84.99 before
- ASA upheld complaint, stating consumers would understand £84.99 as usual selling price
- No evidence provided to show boots were usually sold at £84.99 by Sports Direct
- Delivery charges information not easily accessible on website
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a Sports Direct ad for misleading customers about the original price of a product and warned the company to make its delivery charges clearer. The sportswear retailer’s website promoted Karrimor walking boots at £37 with the ‘original’ price shown as £84.99. A complaint was made, claiming the crossed-out higher price of £84.99 was misleading, and it was determined that the boots could not be obtained without a delivery charge. Sports Direct argued the crossed-out higher price was a recommended retail price (RRP) and had the price list from the manufacturer. However, the ASA upheld the complaint, stating consumers would understand £84.99 as the usual selling price at the time of the ad’s appearance. The ASA also concluded that delivery charges information was not easily accessible on the website.
Factuality Level: 8
Factuality Justification: The article provides accurate and objective information about the ASA’s decision regarding Sports Direct’s misleading advertising practices. It presents both sides of the argument and includes relevant details without any clear signs of sensationalism or opinion masquerading as fact.
Noise Level: 3
Noise Justification: The article provides relevant and factual information about a specific incident involving Sports Direct and the Advertising Standards Authority. It does not contain any irrelevant or misleading information, nor does it reinforce popular narratives without questioning them. The article stays on topic and supports its claims with evidence (the ASA’s decision). However, it lacks analysis of long-term trends or possibilities, exploration of consequences for those involved, scientific rigor, intellectual honesty, staying on topic, providing actionable insights, or new knowledge that the reader can apply. Therefore, the overall rating is closer to 3.
Financial Relevance: Yes
Financial Markets Impacted: Sports Direct
Financial Rating Justification: The article discusses a financial issue related to pricing and advertising practices of Sports Direct, which is a company in the retail sector. The ASA’s decision could potentially impact the company’s sales and reputation, thus affecting its financial performance.
Presence Of Extreme Event: No
Nature Of Extreme Event: Other
Impact Rating Of The Extreme Event: Minor
Extreme Rating Justification: There is no extreme event mentioned in the article. The issue discussed here is related to a misleading advertisement by Sports Direct and its ban by the Advertising Standards Authority.
www.retailsector.co.uk