ASA cracks down on Hammonds Furniture’s misleading promotions!
- Hammonds Furniture had three adverts banned by the ASA for being misleading.
- The ASA found a countdown timer ad misled consumers about the end of promotions.
- Claims of unbeatable quality and price were deemed unsubstantiated.
- Hammonds failed to clarify its price match promise in advertising.
- The ASA ruled that future ads must not mislead about time-limited offers.
Hammonds Furniture, a specialist in bedroom and fitted furniture, has recently faced a setback as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned three of its advertisements for being misleading. This decision came after a challenge from rival company Sharps Furniture Group. The ASA’s investigation focused on two ads from Hammonds’ website that were active in May 2025, including a homepage banner that promoted time-limited discounts and a page titled ‘Why choose Hammonds?’. nnThe first issue arose from a banner ad that claimed ‘Up to 40% off selected finishes + an extra 5% offer ends in…’ with a countdown timer. The ASA determined that consumers would likely interpret this as a single promotion that would end when the timer expired. However, Hammonds clarified that the ‘extra 5%’ offer ended on May 26, 2025, while the ‘up to 40% off’ promotion continued until June 2, 2025. The ASA ruled that the lack of clarity between these two offers could mislead consumers into thinking the entire promotion was about to end, thus breaching CAP Code rules regarding promotional conditions. nnThe second and third issues were related to statements on the ‘Why choose Hammonds?’ page, which claimed, ‘We won’t be beaten on quality and price’ and ‘Because we design and make everything ourselves, we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat’. Sharps challenged the validity of these claims, and while Hammonds argued that these statements referred to its price match promise, the ASA found that the ad did not mention this scheme or provide details for consumers to verify it. Consequently, the ASA concluded that these statements could mislead consumers into believing Hammonds offered the lowest prices compared to competitors. nnHammonds’ evidence, which included seven market price checks against a single rival, was deemed insufficient to support their claims. The ASA also noted that Hammonds’ bespoke business model made it difficult to verify such comparisons. As a result, the ASA upheld all three complaints and instructed Hammonds Furniture to revise its advertising practices. The ruling emphasized that future ads must not misleadingly imply that discount offers are time-limited if they are not, and that comparative price claims must be substantiated and verifiable.·
Factuality Level: 7
Factuality Justification: The article provides a detailed account of the ASA’s ruling against Hammonds Furniture, including specific claims made by the company and the reasons for the complaints. However, it contains some redundancy, particularly in the repeated information about the ads and the ASA’s findings, which detracts from its overall clarity and conciseness.·
Noise Level: 7
Noise Justification: The article provides a detailed account of the Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling against Hammonds Furniture for misleading advertisements. It includes specific examples of the misleading claims and the ASA’s reasoning, which supports its claims with evidence. However, the article is somewhat repetitive, particularly in the way it presents the same information multiple times, which detracts from its overall clarity and focus.·
Financial Relevance: Yes
Financial Markets Impacted: Hammonds Furniture
Financial Rating Justification: The article discusses the banning of three ads by Hammonds Furniture due to misleading information, which could impact their sales and reputation in the market. This affects the company’s financial situation and potentially impacts its competitors as well.
Presence Of Extreme Event: No
Nature Of Extreme Event: No
Impact Rating Of The Extreme Event: No
Extreme Rating Justification: The article discusses a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority regarding misleading advertisements but does not mention any extreme event occurring in the last 48 hours.·
www.retailgazette.co.uk