An estate agent has been ordered to withdraw advertising that compared its services with rival firms after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled the campaign was misleading and failed to provide consumers with enough information to verify its claims.
The watchdog upheld two complaints against RE/MAX Property Specialists, operated by Scottish estate agent Billie Dunlop n(main picture, inset), following a challenge from Neilsons Solicitors & Estate Agents.
The complaint centred on a leaflet and Facebook advertisement which compared RE/MAX Property Specialists against three named competitors across a range of service features, including accompanied viewings, social media marketing, personalised sale boards, viewing feedback and negotiation services.
The adverts claimed RE/MAX offered a number of benefits that competitors did not, with a comparison table showing ticks against almost every category for RE/MAX and only two categories for rival firms.
RULE BREACH
The ASA investigated whether the comparisons were misleading and whether they could be independently verified by consumers.
While the regulator accepted that some claims reflected genuine differences in the way Dunlop personally delivered his service, it ruled that several of the statements breached advertising rules.
Among the claims criticised by the ASA was “Personal social media campaign”. The regulator found that consumers would interpret the statement as meaning RE/MAX offered tailored social media promotion that competitors did not provide. However, evidence showed rival firms also used social media marketing, making the comparison misleading.
The ASA also ruled against claims relating to “Personalised sale board for maximum marketing effect”, finding the statement was unclear and failed to reflect the fact that competitors also used branded and personalised boards.
SKILLED NEGOTIATIONS
Claims that sellers would receive “Same day feedback on all viewings” were also challenged.
While Dunlop argued that conducting viewings personally enabled him to provide rapid feedback, the ASA said there was insufficient evidence to prove feedback was always provided on the same day or that competitors were unable to do the same.
The watchdog also criticised the claim “Skilled negotiations by an agent who knows your home”, concluding that it was likely to be interpreted as a subjective statement about competitors’ abilities rather than an objective and measurable comparison.
More significantly for the wider industry, the ASA ruled that the comparison itself was not verifiable. Although the adverts stated the information was based on research into each agency’s standard package, they failed to explain the sources used, when the research had been conducted or where consumers could check the claims for themselves.
NOT TO APPEAR AGAIN
The regulator said consumers were not given enough information to understand how the comparison had been compiled or assess whether it was accurate.
The ASA ordered the adverts not to appear again in their current form and instructed RE/MAX Property Specialists to ensure future comparisons with identifiable competitors are objective, verifiable and supported by adequate evidence.
BIG REMINDER
The ruling serves as a reminder for agents that while comparative advertising is permitted, any claims made against rival firms must be capable of independent verification and supported by robust evidence.
As competition intensifies across both sales and lettings, agencies increasingly use comparison marketing to differentiate their service proposition, but the ASA’s decision demonstrates the risks of making claims that cannot be objectively substantiated.
For agents considering similar campaigns, the message from the regulator is clear: comparisons can be powerful marketing tools, but only when they are accurate, evidence-based and transparent.
