The Co-operative Group has been found to have misled consumers with its price-match advertising campaign comparing products with discount rival Aldi, according to a ruling from the UK's advertising watchdog.
Advertising Standards Authority Investigation
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) launched an investigation after receiving a complaint from Aldi regarding the Co-op's price-match scheme advertising. The German discount supermarket provided the regulator with a list of 45 items that the Co-op had used in its August advertising campaign, which Aldi argued were not the most appropriate products for comparison.
Problematic Product Comparisons
The ASA's investigation revealed significant issues with how the Co-op implemented its price-match scheme. While some products were appropriately matched - including Co-op's Seeded Loaf, Tiger Bloomer, White Toastie Loaf and Wholemeal Loaf, which had exact equivalents at Aldi - many other comparisons were problematic.
The regulator identified several categories of misleading comparisons:
- Products matched to similar alternatives where no identical product was sold at Aldi, such as Co-op's Linguini Pasta compared with Aldi's Cucina Spaghetti
- Co-op's Summer Fruits Flavoured Still Spring Water matched against Aldi's Apple & Blackcurrant Flavoured Still Water
- Co-op Meaty Chunks in Jelly with Turkey compared with Aldi's Earls Meaty Chunks with Chicken in Jelly
Questionable Selection Criteria
In some instances, the ASA found that the Co-op had selected less similar alternatives despite closer matches being available at Aldi. One notable example was Co-op matching their Wholemeal Farmhouse Loaf with an Aldi White Farmhouse Loaf, despite Aldi not selling a wholemeal version of that specific product.
The Co-op defended this particular comparison by arguing that the "farmhouse" style of bread represented a more significant feature than whether the loaf was wholemeal or white. However, the ASA rejected this justification in its final ruling.
Regulator's Verdict
The ASA stated clearly in its ruling: "We considered that consumers would understand the prices to be matched against the same products sold by both stores, or, for those who had read the small text at the bottom of the ad, that on the occasion the same product was not sold, the nearest comparable individual product would be selected for comparison."
The regulator continued: "However, because Aldi's nearest comparable individual product had not always been selected by Co-op for inclusion in the price match, and because no sufficiently prominent information was provided or adequately signposted to explain how products were deemed 'comparable', and to verify the claim, we concluded that the basis of the comparison had not been made clear and that the ad was therefore misleading."
Co-op's Response
A Co-op spokesperson responded to the ruling by stating: "We ensure the product comparisons utilised in our Aldi price-match offer are presented clearly on our website to enable shoppers to easily verify the matches. In response to the ruling, we have now made changes to our T&Cs online."
Consumer Advice
Reena Sewraz, retail editor at consumer organisation Which?, offered important advice to shoppers following the ruling: "Aldi almost always comes out as the cheapest supermarket in our monthly pricing analysis, so price-match schemes can sound like a win for shoppers, especially for those who don't have an Aldi nearby or prefer to shop elsewhere."
She added: "But this ASA ruling underlines why price-match claims should be treated with caution. Previous Which? research found that some price-matched products weren't like-for-like on ingredients, quality or pack size. Shoppers shouldn't assume a price match guarantees the same product or the best value - it pays to look beyond the label and check what you're really getting."
Broader Implications
This ruling highlights the increasing scrutiny facing supermarket price-match schemes across the UK retail sector. As consumers face ongoing cost of living pressures, such schemes have become increasingly popular marketing tools for supermarkets seeking to demonstrate value to price-conscious shoppers.
The ASA's decision serves as a reminder to all retailers that price-match claims must be transparent, fair and accurately represent what consumers can expect when comparing products between different supermarket chains.
