Watchdog backs easyJet holidays over On the Beach price comparison complaints

An On the Beach email made misleading price comparison claims and failed to make clear if people needed to act quickly to benefit from an advertised lower price, the advertising watchdog has ruled.

 

The advert, claiming to have found a Portugal holiday £592 cheaper than easyJet holidays, also did not make the basis of comparisons clear and failed to provide “prominent information” to allow people to verify comparisons, according to the Advertising Standards Authority.

 

EasyJet holidays challenged the claims and had two complaints upheld.

 

On the Beach argued that both holidays were “functionally equivalent” in that its offer with Ryanair flights at similar times to low-cost rival easyJet on the same route from Luton Airport with only a hold baggage allowance difference of 3kg.

 

But the ASA found that the comparison used headline prices rather than additional promotional discounts, because such discounts could be conditional or not universally available.

 

“However, on that basis, we considered the packages were not identical,” the authority said.

 

“We also understood that easyJet holidays had operated a £100 website promotion at the time which reduced the effective package price for consumers who applied the promotional code, and that On the Beach had excluded such promotional savings from their comparison.

 

“Given the prominence of the ‘£592 cheaper’ and ‘identical holiday’ claims, we considered that excluding a genuine generally available promotional saving and relying on a different airline, with a lower baggage allowance, to achieve the headline price did not provide a like-for-like basis for an ‘identical’ comparison.”   

 

EasyJet holidays also told the ASA its own package was £1,802, taking into account a promotional discount.

 

The On the Beach holiday price shown on its landing page at that point was £1,983, which was over £900 higher than the price On the Beach said applied to its package at the time of the comparison (£1,022.94), the ruling noted.

 

The ASA said: “We noted that the ad stated, ‘Prices are dynamic and are subject to change’, ‘The price may fluctuate due to demand’ and clarified when the comparison had last been checked.

 

“However, we considered that, nor the rest of the ad, did not make sufficiently clear how quickly consumers may need to act to achieve the claimed saving, in particular given that it was referred to as a ‘Deal of the Week’, which could imply that the claimed saving could be achieved during the week the email was received.

 

“In that context, because the On the Beach price that formed the basis of the comparison differed significantly from the comparison point only a day later, we considered that consumers were likely to be misled about the price saving available. 
 
“Because the headline claims gave the impression of a current £592 saving on an identical package, without making clear how quickly consumers may need to act to achieve the claimed saving, whereas the saving was derived from a price snapshot that increased significantly in a short time, and because it excluded a generally available £100 promotional saving on the competitor package, and compared packages that differed on material features including airline, flight times and included baggage allowance (and was therefore not an ‘identical’ package), we concluded that the ad was misleading.”

 

On the Beach pointed out that the advert made the basis of the comparison clear as it contained all material features of the two holidays, the dates when prices were checked, along with a ”clear caveat” that prices may fluctuate in line with the ASA’s guidance on travel marketing.  

 

The OTA considered that it was not misleading for price comparisons to exclude discounts where this was made clear to consumers.

 

As the terms and conditions in the advert stated that the comparison did not take into account promotional savings, its view was that the deal shown was a “fair and accurate comparison” based on the headline price shown to consumers and did not mislead in any way. 

However, upholding the compliant the ASA said: “Because the email did not include the holiday prices that were being compared but directed readers only to a sales-focused landing page subject to change as a result of prices that were inherently variable, consumers would be unable to verify the £592 saving with reasonable effort once prices fluctuated.”

 

Ruling that the advert, seen in August last year, must not appear again in the form complained of, the ASA said: “We told On the Beach to ensure that future price comparison claims that were presented as identical were based on packages that were the same in all material respects, and made clear if consumers were likely to need to act quickly to benefit from an advertised lower price.

 

“We also told them to ensure future comparative claims included, or clearly signposted to, sufficient information to allow consumers to verify the comparison.”

 

An On the Beach spokesperson said: “We accept the ASA’s decision and recognise that the use of the word identical was not suitable for the price comparison that was made. 

“We have updated our approach to ensure greater transparency when communicating price comparisons with our customers going forward.

 

“This includes removing language that could imply direct equivalence, clearly displaying both our price and the competitor price, and making it clearer and easier for our customers to independently verify comparisons.”