RGDATA’s complaint upheld regarding Aldi’s Swap & Save Campaign
Complaints made by RGDATA and others to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Aldi Swap & Save campaign have resulted in Aldi being told that aspects of the campaign were not in line with the advertising standards code and they were not to run these formats of the ads again.
A television advertisement for Aldi featured a family finding out how much they saved when they shopped with Aldi for four weeks. Statements made by the family during the advertisement included:
We had this image that because we were going to be buying cheaper, we will be cutting our quality, but it didn’t happen at all.
Everything was excellent quality. We swapped to Aldi and we saved €486 for 4 weeks.
The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland examined three issues – firstly, that no information on the breakdown of the savings or substantiation for the savings had been provided for the amounts. Secondly it was not possible to verify the savings claim as it was not clear what products the savings related to; and thirdly, no information had been provided as to how the products purchased had been selected.
In the circumstances they considered that it was impossible to verify Aldi’s price savings claims and the advertising was therefore misleading.
The first and third issues were not upheld, but the second issue was for the following reasons:
“The Committee considered that the advertising campaign had made it clear that the savings made by the participants were based on the fact that those featured had switched their grocery shopping to Aldi over a specific period of time and was inviting consumers to swap to Aldi where they could also potentially save money on their shopping. The Committee, however, noted that no information had been provided in the advertising or on the advertisers’ website on where the participant’s initial 4-week shopping had taken place or provided any information on the products purchased. In the circumstances, the Committee considered that the absence of such information meant that consumers could not verify if the savings advertised were likely to be relevant to them based on their shopping habits.
As the advertising had not included any such information, or even a direction to the information, the Committee considered that the advertising was misleading by omission and was in breach of Sections 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code.”
