Tesco wins in 'chicken korma' war with Sainsbury's

LONDON: British supermarket giant Tesco has won a battle of words with arch-rival Sainsbury's over price comparisons on products like chicken korma curry.

Tesco's "Price Promise" campaign promised customers that they would not lose out financially by shopping at Tesco.

Sainsbury's complained to Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that some product comparisons were unfair, such as its chicken korma curry, and its value ham.

However the ASA has ruled that Tesco's campaign was not misleading.

David Wood, Tesco UK marketing director, said: "We are delighted because we know how good Price Promise is for customers. It is very simple, but it is very powerful."

Tesco launched its Price Promise campaign in March, telling its customers that they would not lose out on "big brands, own-label or fresh foods".

It promised to compare prices with equivalent items at supermarkets like Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons.

Where prices are cheaper at rival supermarkets, Tesco issues its customers with a voucher for the difference.

But Sainsbury's complained that not all products were exactly equivalent.

It said its own chicken korma curry was made with 100 per cent British chicken, whereas Tesco's was not.

Similarly, its "basics" ham range was produced with British pork, whereas Tesco used meat from elsewhere in the European Union.

"They are priced the same, but our pork is British, and Tesco's is sourced from somewhere else in the EU," said Sainsbury's commercial director, Mike Coupe.

"They are not the same product," the BBC quoted Coupe as saying.

But Tesco argued to the ASA that most people were not primarily concerned about where the meat had been produced.

"For the majority of customers, the product's country of origin would only be a minor factor in a customer's decision- making," it told the ASA.

The ASA said it noted Sainsbury's concerns, but it said the advertisement had clearly explained the basis of Tesco's price comparison.

The ASA said the claim made in it was substantiated, and was not misleading.