Advertising Complaints Upheld Against SuperValu, Danone
Published on Aug 5 2014 3:38 PM in Retail
The ASAI has upheld complaints made about advertising campaigns from Danone and SuperValu, according to its latest Complaints Bulletin. With regard to SuperValu, a complaint was made over the pricin...
The ASAI has upheld complaints made about advertising campaigns from Danone and SuperValu, according to its latest Complaints Bulletin.
With regard to SuperValu, a complaint was made over the pricing of a variety of wine, Excellence Saint Chinan, which formed part of the retailer's recent French Wine Sale. The complainant noted that the wine was available for 'half price', at €8.49, however according to the complainant's previous receipts, dated from four months previously, the wine had been available at €8.50, meaning the 'saving' in this instance amounted to one cent.
In response, the advertisers said that their policy has 'always been to establish a price for at least 28 successive days in the previous three months before stating that an item had been reduced to half price'. They noted that this policy had not been applied in this instance, saying that a mix-up had occurred in their trading and marketing departments, leading to the wine being incorrectly marketed as half price. The advertisers thanked the complainant for 'bringing the matter to their attention'.
The ASAI's Complaints Committee upheld the complaint, but noted that as the promotional material had been amended, no further action was necessary in this instance.
A complaint against Danone was also upheld by the Complaints Committee, after the complainant, a medical doctor, claimed that a slogan used in a recent advertising campaign ('But did you know your immune system needs a healthy breakfast every day?') was 'not based on scientific or medical fact'.
The advertisers said in response that they would 'never intend to mislead any member of the general public', and were 'very thorough' to ensure that their advertising adhered to relevant codes of practice. The Complaints Committee did not consider that the advertisers had substantiated the claim made in the advert, and found that it was in breach of Section 8.1 of the Code. However, as the original advertisement had been amended, no further action in relation to it was required.
Complaints were also upheld against Vodafone and the DAA, according to the Bulletin.