NAD Recommends Walmart Discontinue Certain Savings Claims, Following Challenge By Staples

New York, New York – Feb. 22, 2011– The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has recommended that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., modify or discontinue certain comparative pricing claims.

NAD, the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum, examined claims made by Walmart in television, radio and print advertising following a challenge by Staples, a competing retailer of office and school supplies.

Staples challenged a national television commercial that stated consumers would “save 30% or more versus the national office superstores,” and objected to claims made in print and radio advertisements, published in various markets around the country, that Walmart shoppers would save anywhere from 28 percent to 63 percent on school supplies in their respective markets.

(Full text of decision available to media, upon request)

In making a comparative savings claims, advertisers should take care to assure that the object of comparison is clearly defined for consumers and that the savings are carefully calculated.

The broadcast advertising was set in a busy home office where children were playing with their mother’s office supplies. The advertising claim at issue was based on 36 distinct items, which Walmart said were identified in the commercial. NAD noted in its decision, however, that even “on close examination, a consumer would find it difficult – if not impossible – to identify 36 distinct items in this fast-moving, 15-second scene. NAD therefore determined that the ‘save 30% or more’ claim, within the context of the challenged commercial, could be understood as conveying a message of broad savings, beyond the 36 items identified by Walmart.”

NAD recommended the advertiser discontinue the claim at issue.

NAD next considered the print and radio advertisements published around the country. Each print advertisement featured a two-column back-to-school shopping list that compared the prices of each item at Walmart versus Staples. The list was headlined: “We did the math for you: You’ll save when you shop with us.”

Given the prominence of the price comparison, NAD determined that consumers would understand the percentage savings claims as relating to the items on the lists, rather than all items available at Walmart and would recognize that the advertisements were tailored to “back to school” season. NAD found that the format of the challenged back-to-school advertisements did not convey a message of store-wide savings.

However, NAD was troubled by the various price inaccuracies identified by Staples and noted that Walmart’s percentage savings claims were significantly affected if the price for a given product was inaccurate. NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue any references to inaccurate prices, as well as any percentage savings calculations that are based on these inaccuracies.

Finally, NAD was troubled by the savings claims made in Walmart’s radio advertisements. The radio commercials were similar to the print advertisements, but did not include the list of items and prices upon which the savings claims were made.

Instead, the radio advertisements directed consumers to specific editions of their local newspapers, where they could view the lists. Consumers were unable – absent a copy of the newspaper – to understand the basis for the savings claim. Further, NAD was also concerned that the savings promoted in the radio advertisements were based in part on inaccurately reported prices for Staples goods. NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the percentage savings claims in the context of its radio commercials.

Walmart noted it was pleased that NAD determined that Walmart’s savings claims were properly limited. Walmart disagreed with certain of NAD’s findings, but said it “appreciates the opportunity to participate in the self-regulatory program and will take NAD’s recommendations into account in future advertising.”

 

Subscribe to the Ad Law Insights or Privacy Initiatives newsletters for an exclusive monthly analysis and insider perspectives on the latest trends and case decisions in advertising law and data privacy.

 

 

 

 

Latest Decisions

Decision

National Advertising Division Recommends Blueprint Test Preparation Discontinue Certain MCAT Score Improvement Claims

New York, NY – April 22, 2024 – The National Advertising Division recommended Blueprint Test Preparation discontinue certain express and implied claims made in connection with its four MCAT preparation courses, including claims that Blueprint students raise their MCAT scores by 15 or 13 points on average.

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

National Advertising Division Recommends The Princeton Review Discontinue Point Increase Claims for MCAT Test Preparation Services

New York, NY – April 18, 2024 – In a Fast-Track SWIFT challenge, the National Advertising Division recommended that The Princeton Review (TPR) discontinue claims that its students “Score a 515+ on the MCAT or add 15 points depending on your starting score. Guaranteed or your money back.”

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council Recommends Trades of Hope Discontinue Salesforce Member Earnings Claims

McLean, VA – April 17, 2024 – The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC) recommended that Trades of Hope discontinue certain earnings claims made by salesforce members on Facebook and YouTube. 

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

National Advertising Division Recommends Lily of the Desert Nutraceuticals Discontinue “100% Pure Avocado Oil” Claim for Tropical Plantation Avocado Oil

New York, NY – April 15, 2024 – The National Advertising Division recommended that Lily of the Desert Nutraceuticals discontinue the claim “100% Pure Avocado Oil” for its Tropical Plantation Avocado Oil and avoid conveying the unsupported message that the product is 100% pure avocado...

Read the Decision Summary