A review posted on TripAdvisor and which reappeared on an advertising site was not proven to be genuine before it was re-published and should not have been used, the advertising watchdog has ruled.
The case could have implications for other review sites, after the Advertising Standards Authority said that reviews must not be used in advertising unless they can be authenticated.
The case surrounded a holiday flat in Durham. A testimonial on the moonlightapartment.co.uk site featured a widget containing TripAdvisor reviews, the first of which stated: “...This TripAdvisor Member: Liked? Location, personal attention to details Disliked? Nothing Mazza08 Dubai, September 2008.”
However, the review was challenged by a complainant as to whether the advertisers could substantiate that the review by ‘Mazza08’ was genuine and whether it breached the CAP code for advertising.
Moonlight Apartment Durham (MAD) said that all testimonials which appeared on their website were genuine reports from guests who had stayed at their properties. They said that their website said the review by ‘Mazza08’ appeared on TripAdvisor, which was a matter of fact. They provided a screenshot of the TripAdvisor webpage on which the relevant review appeared, and confirmed that they had reproduced it unedited on their website.
MAD told the Advertising Standards Authority they did not have any control over what was published on TripAdvisor or other review websites and, because reviewers usually wished to retain their anonymity, it was not always possible for them to identify which of their past guests had written the review.
They said, however, that they had had only one guest from Dubai during the period in question and as a result could identify the reviewer. They later forwarded an email from them, in which they confirmed that they had posted the review on TripAdvisor.
However, the ASA noted the content of the testimonial and said that, because MAD had chosen to incorporate that particular review into the content of their own website, that content was under their control and therefore fell within the remit of the CAP Code.
The Code requires advertisers to hold documentary evidence that testimonials were genuine, and contact details for the people who gave them.
While the ASA acknowledged that MAD had, following receipt of the complaint from the ASA, been able to identify the TripAdvisor reviewer, it said that demonstrated that prior to reproducing the review on their website, MAD was not sure of the identity or contact details of the reviewer and did not hold documentary evidence to substantiate that the testimonial was genuine.
It said that MAD should therefore have held the relevant contact details and documentary evidence to substantiate that the review was genuine before they reproduced it on their website.
The ASA has told MAD not to incorporate testimonials into their advertising unless they held documentary evidence that they were genuine, and contact details for the people who gave them, before publication.
.png)
Comments
Just ignore them like Haart do.