Emma mattress delays - ASA warnings CMA and Which? magazine

ROB1890

Greetings to all! I trust you're doing fine. I wanted to inform you that I've made the decision to cancel my order with Emma. I patiently waited for nearly three months for the "next-gen" mattress, but upon its arrival, I was disappointed to find that it bore no resemblance to the image displayed on the Emma website. Instead, it appeared to be a poorly constructed mattress that lacked adequate support.

Upon my return, I decided to conduct some investigations into Emma, a company that purported to be based in the UK but was, in fact, headquartered in Germany. My discoveries were quite concerning. I learned that Emma had received two warnings from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA): one for misleading promotional offers and a second for seldom selling their mattresses at their full price. Additionally, there was another warning from ASA regarding an advertisement on YouTube. This advertisement was associated with a website, Top 5 mattresses  which claimed to provide independent mattress reviews but was, in reality, operated by Emma itself.

Emma's decision to disregard the ASA's warning regarding misleading discounts prompted the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to intervene. After their investigation, the CMA also concluded that Emma rarely sold mattresses at their full price and subsequently issued a warning to the company.

So, why did I decide to purchase Emma's mattress? Well, my decision was influenced by a review on Which? Best Buy. However, to my surprise, I later discovered that Which? charges Emma for the use of their award. While I'm not certain about the exact amount, it appears to be around £30,000 per year per award, based on information available online. This revelation left me somewhat annoyed, as I had chosen to buy the mattress primarily based on the Which? award.

Although I have received a refund, I'm left with concerns regarding Which?'s continued support for Emma. It seems evident from the numerous 1-star reviews on Emma's Trustpilot page that there are many dissatisfied customers. I wonder why Which? continues to endorse Emma, and I suspect it may be due to the financial arrangement where Emma pays for the use of these awards.

Which, a brand that is supposed to safeguard consumer interests, appears to be prioritizing its own financial gain over the protection of customers like you and me. It's disheartening to see them profiting while customers are left feeling misled and unsatisfied with their purchases. I'm astonished that Which? allows such practices, and as a result, I've decided not to make any future purchases based on their reviews.

Consider this a cautionary message to others: please be vigilant when it comes to incentivized reviews and deceptive information on Emma's website. Stay informed and exercise caution to ensure your purchasing decisions are based on accurate and unbiased information.

sarah1972

Pmd the team to move to an actual board as it’s currently not posted on one. 

ROB1890

Hi 

Oh sorry im new here and not to sure how to do it.

Thanks for your help

knightstyle

Ialways thought Which were completely independant!  This is from their website...
We're not influenced by third parties and we don't accept freebies from product manufacturers or retailers. We have no owners, shareholders or government departments to answer to, so we work entirely on behalf of you, the consumer - nobody else.

ROB1890

If they claim independence, why are they continuing to promote Emma? They should be well-informed about the problems associated with Emma, which is supposed to safeguard its customers. As evident from numerous 1-star reviews on Trustpilot, along with some of these reviews indicating that Emma has thousands of customers enduring delayed refunds, extended waits for goods, some even up to four months or longer, and, in general, causing a multitude of problems.

Emma has incurred two warnings from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), and subsequently, the government's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had to intervene due to Emma's disregard for the ASA's warning. While one warning might be considered reasonable and deserving of correction, Emma chose to disregard it, prompting the CMA's involvement. The CMA's investigation revealed that Emma had deceived its customers with counterfeit offers. Given this track record, one must question why "Which" continues to endorse this brand.

ROB1890

knightstyle said:

Ialways thought Which were completely independant!  This is from their website...
We're not influenced by third parties and we don't accept freebies from product manufacturers or retailers. We have no owners, shareholders or government departments to answer to, so we work entirely on behalf of you, the consumer - nobody else.

If they claim independence, why are they continuing to promote Emma? They should be well-informed about the problems associated with Emma, which is supposed to safeguard its customers. As evident from numerous 1-star reviews on Trustpilot, along with some of these reviews indicating that Emma has thousands of customers enduring delayed refunds, extended waits for goods, some even up to four months or longer, and, in general, causing a multitude of problems.

Emma has incurred two warnings from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), and subsequently, the government's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had to intervene due to Emma's disregard for the ASA's warning. While one warning might be considered reasonable and deserving of correction, Emma chose to disregard it, prompting the CMA's involvement. The CMA's investigation revealed that Emma had deceived its customers with counterfeit offers. Given this track record, one must question why "Which" continues to endorse this brand.