Complaint
   Objections to a magazine advertisement that was headed “Dolphin Bathrooms summer sale” and claimed “absolutely everything half price”. A footnote claimed “all offers based on current price list ...”.
   The complainants, who believed the advertisers had not reduced their prices, challenged the claim “absolutely everything half price”.

Adjudication — Complaints Upheld
   The advertisers said the advertisement stated that discounts were based on the list price and every price in their published price list had been reduced by 50% during the summer sale.  They said the advertisement made clear that, to qualify for the 50% offer, readers had to order at least a bath or a shower enclosure, a wash basin and a WC.
   The advertisers said each of their products had been excluded from promotional offers for at least 28 days in the six months before the summer sale.  They explained that they tried not to sell bathrooms at the full list price; if customers wanted to order a bathroom that was excluded from promotional offers, the advertisers encouraged the customer either to choose another bathroom that was discounted or to wait until the bathroom they had chosen became eligible for promotions.
   The advertisers sent a copy of their price list, dated June 2003.  They also sent letters to their sales designers dated 14 February, 14 March, 11 April and 9 May 2003; the letters listed products that should be sold at the full list price for the next 28 days.  They gave the Authority a letter to their sales designers that confirmed that, during the summer sale, all the products and services in their price list could be offered for 50% off the list price.
   The Authority considered that “sale” implied that, for a limited period, the advertisers were selling their products for less than the usual selling price.  It noted the advertised products had been excluded from promotional offers for one month in the six months before the advertisement appeared and could have been discounted for the other five months.
   The Authority considered that the evidence sent by the advertisers did not prove that they ever charged their list prices.  It concluded that the advertisement was misleading and asked the advertisers not to claim they were offering products “half price” unless they could show that they were offering those products, for a limited period, for half the usual selling price.