Were the Order to be introduced as currently drafted, a negative impact on this source of revenue might realistically be anticipated. For example, it would no longer be possible to inform the consumer about as many products, as more space would be required to describe fewer offerings. The value of print advertising to retailers would therefore be substantially diminished. Thus it seems logical to assume that supermarkets would almost certainly switch to those media that escaped the remit of the Order. Whereas the implications of the Order for print media would be large and entirely negative, the benefit accruing to the consumer from unit pricing in such newspaper advertisements would be virtually nil.
Unit pricing is only helpful when there are ready points of comparison.
However, the intent behind these retailer advertisements is to promote the store and the particular offers they are highlighting over a particular time frame. For example, it would be unlikely that a retailer advertised its full range of tea products in the same advertisement allowing consumers to decide which provided best value for money in the store, as it is unlikely they would all be on offer simultaneously. Such comparisons would become possible once the consumer had been successfully attracted to the store - the initial intention of the advertisement. The AA also considers that the above burdens on print advertising appear all the more unfair given that the Order's provisions will not be applied to broadcast media. Whilst the DTI's decision to exclude radio and television advertisements from the scope of the Order appears eminently sensible, it seems almost inevitable that retailers would switch from advertising in print media to broadcast media were the former placed at such a relative disadvantage to the latter.