Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Rule 7.1 of the CAP Code requires marketers to hold documentary evidence for all claims, whether direct or implied, that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The adequacy of evidence will be judged on whether it supports both the detailed claims and the impression created by the marketing communication. Rule 3.1 states that marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
The phrase “Limited Edition” is commonly used interchangeably with “Collectible” or “Collectors’ Item” and the ASA has come across the term to describe miniature cars, special-issue stamps and commemorative coins or plates. Generally, a collectible is a product advertised for its interest as a collector’s item, with the emphasis being placed primarily on factors such as scarcity or aesthetic quality and not, or not solely, on practical considerations such as utility.
Marketers must not mislead and should ensure that the general description they give about their product is accurate. The ASA has upheld complaints about advertisements that have not made clear that coins are not legal tender (The Crown Collections Ltd t/a The London Mint, 4 October 2006) or that have exaggerated the quality of a collectible (Associated Newspapers Ltd t/a Daily Mail, 5 October 2005). Marketers need to hold evidence that the supply of their products is limited.
As well as ensuring they can demonstrate that their products are "limited", marketers should take care not to mislead about the extent of the limitation. The ASA has rejected complaints about products being described as “strictly limited collection” if the ad has stated the number of products available but upheld complaints if marketers seem to have exaggerated the limitation (Royal Mint Coin Club, 26 November 2003). In fact, years ago the 8th edition of the CAP Code explicitly stated that advertisers should state the maximum number of articles. In 1999, the Sales Promotion and Direct Response Panel considered that a promoter prepared to satisfy all demand for a so-called “limited edition” model car was not offering a genuine “limited edition”. But a complaint in 2004 was not upheld despite the ad not stating the upper limit: only 1,300 of the “collectible” were produced (JND Ltd, 31 March 2004).
Marketers should neither exaggerate the desirability by misleading about how limited their products are nor mislead about the present or likely future value of the item. Just because products are limited, marketers should not imply that they will increase in value unless they can demonstrate a strong likelihood that they will (Stanley Gibbons, (Guernsey) Ltd, 30 April 2008, and International Collectors Society, December 1999).
Marketers should avoid confusing readers about what they are describing as a ”limited edition”. Some years ago, the ASA upheld complaints against an ad that offered for sale a model car using the headline “The 1911 Rolls-Royce Tourer Limited Edition”. The advertiser explained that the heading referred to the original life-size car, not the model.
If they join up with a charity to produce a limited-edition article, marketers should bear in mind that they could be subject to Rules 8.33 and 8.34, which deal with charity-linked promotions. Marketers might need to include an explanation of which charity is going to benefit and by how much.
Marketers should ensure that they adhere to the Distance Selling clauses that appear in Section 9 of the CAP Code. Those clauses explain the product information and refund and returns policy information that should be included in ads for products if the buyer and seller do not meet face-to-face. The ASA has upheld complaints about ads that did not make clear consumers were committing to buying a collection (The Crown Collections Ltd t/a The London Mint, 22 October 2008), the full cost of the collection (The Bradford Exchange, 2 June 2004) and if the marketer did not provide a refund (Liam Price, 27 November 2002). See Section 9.
Last modified : 03 August 2010