July 5, 2016

A TV ad claimed a £70 Aldi shop would cost £98 at the “big four” supermarkets.  Another TV ad showed two sets of food products side by side on a kitchen table – one with “Big 4 Supermarkets £53.35” and one with “ALDI £33.04” displayed above.  On-screen text, which was shown in the first half of the ad, included “Comparison of products shown.  Other supermarkets may sell ‘own brand’ products at different prices.”

A press ad read, “When it comes to the crunch, Aldi win every time. Other supermarkets go up, down, all over the place.  But Aldi have ‘everyday low prices’, so you know where you stand.”

Morrisons and two members of the public complained that the ads did not make it clear that Aldi’s own-brand products were being compared with branded products.

The ASA acknowledged that Aldi stated it had not intended the comparisons to represent a “typical” weekly shop, but to be a comparison between the pictured products only.  However, the ASA said that the overall message of the ads was that the level of savings highlighted were representative of the level of savings which could be achieved by the average shopper and that the on-screen text and small print, which noted that other supermarkets may sell “own brand” products at different prices, was not sufficient to override the overall message of the ads.

The ASA considered that consumers would expect that a fair and representative selection of products had been compared, whereas Aldi had not provided any evidence that the comparator shops (including the mix of branded and own-brand) were a fair and truly representative selection of goods typically purchased.  The ASA also considered that it was unlikely that price conscious consumers to whom the ads were targeted would purchase such a large proportion of branded goods when own-brand goods were typically available and would generally be cheaper.

Although the ASA noted that Aldi believed its own-brand goods (sold under exclusive brand names) were more properly compared with branded goods in terms of quality, it considered that the focus of the ads was on price and no reference was made to quality.  In that context, the ASA considered consumers would generally see own-brand competitor products as the most obvious comparator to Aldi products.

Because the ads implied that by swapping from their usual big supermarket to shopping at Aldi, consumers could make savings of the levels highlighted in the ads (rather than presenting the comparison as a representation of the savings which could be made by switching from a largely branded shop to shopping in Aldi), and because it had not seen evidence to demonstrate that that was in fact the case, the ASA concluded that the ads were misleading and breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price comparisons) and CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price comparisons).  To read ASA Ruling on Aldi Stores Ltd (29 June 2016), click here.