The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled against a Poole-based estate agency firm.
A regional press ad for Kirk Estates Ltd, which featured a Venn diagram of the numbers of properties distributed across the Zoopla and Rightmove online portals. The circle representing Rightmove properties was slightly larger than that representing Zoopla properties, and portions of the diagram were labelled “Properties unique to Zoopla,” “Properties on Zoopla and Rightmove,” and “Properties unique to Rightmove”. Underneath the diagram a table gave the number of visitors, agents and properties available on each, and stated that 554,000 and 727,000 properties were on Zoopla and Rightmove respectively. A headline stated “Different audiences use Rightmove & Zoopla that’s why at Kirk Estates we use BOTH to market your property” and a footnote stated “*Source – Theadvisory.co.uk”.
Spicerhaart Group Ltd, who believed that the Venn diagram presented the data in a way that implied Zoopla had a larger share of available properties than was the case, challenged whether the claim that distinct segments of the property buying public were exclusive to specific portals was misleading and could be substantiated, and the way in which the data was presented was misleading.
Kirk Estates Ltd stated that they had taken the number of properties on the portals from the home pages of the respective websites, and that they therefore understood these figures were accurate because they were published by the portals themselves and made available to the general public. They stated that the diagram had been sourced from the third-party website www.theadvisory.co.uk, which they described as a highly credible and recognised impartial advice site.
With regard to the claim “Different audiences use Rightmove and Zoopla”, Kirk Estates stated that they carried out a survey on Facebook and other social media platforms, and also sent letters to their clients and other members of the public. They said that some individuals preferred one portal and some the other, but that the majority use one first and then the other, in order to benefit from functions on both sites. They stated that a documented survey was not required because it was a fact widely reported across property news.
Kirk Estates also provided an email from Rightmove, which post-dated the publication of the ad, stating that on 29 January there were 973,951 properties for rental and sale on the site.
Regarding the first complaint, the ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “Different audiences use Rightmove & Zoopla” as an objective claim that some consumers were using one or other portal exclusively in their property search. It acknowledged Kirk Estates’ assertion that they had carried out a consumer survey to determine that consumers used the portals in a variety of ways, but noted that the results of this survey were not provided. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the portals each had an exclusive audience not shared by the other, the ASA concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation).
Over the second issue, the ASA considered that the Venn diagram showing segments labelled as representing properties exclusive to each site would be understood as a statement that both portals contained property listings that were only available on that site and not on any others, and that these listings were distributed in the proportion shown on the diagram.
The ad watchdog acknowledged the advertisers’ statement that they had obtained the data relating to the total number of properties on Rightmove and Zoopla from the portals themselves, and noted that the proportions of the Venn diagram circles largely correlated to this data. However, they had not provided evidence to demonstrate that the numbers quoted in the ad were correct when they went to press.
the ASA noted that the email from Rightmove gave a figure for the number of rental and sale properties, but noted that this post-dated the publication of the ad and was therefore not held by the advertiser at the time the ad was published. Moreover, the number of sales properties alone could not be extrapolated from this figure, and pertained only to Rightmove.
The ASA said it understood that the advertiser had sourced the Venn diagram from a third-party site that they considered to be impartial and credible, but had not provided details of where this diagram could be found on the site or the veracity of the data supporting it. It acknowledged that the source was credited to this site but noted that, as it had been featured in a marketing communication, it was the responsibility of the advertiser to provide evidence to substantiate the accuracy of the diagram. Because the ASA had not seen data from the time the ad was published to demonstrate how many properties were on each portal, how many were unique to each portal and that these latter numbers were represented proportionally by the Venn diagram, it concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
The estate agent was told the ad must not appear again in its current form. The ASA also told Kirk Estates Ltd to ensure that they held substantiation for claims in future ads, including material sourced from third parties.