ASA Adjudication on Satellite Information Services Ltd

Ad

A press ad, for Satellite Information Services (SIS), was headed "Let's get the facts straight". Text stated "AMRAC propose to supply a service for £6,500* pa for content that currently costs bookmakers under £1,600 pa as part of the SIS service! ...". A table below the text “The cost of 30 RUK courses as part of:” stated "Amrac Service … TOTAL £6500* … SIS Service … TOTAL £1575"; smaller text below it stated "*Also includes some virtual and numbers content". Further text continued "After all the claims about reducing prices for bookmakers, we now know that the cost of receiving racing from the 30 RUK courses will be four times as much as it does now …". A pie chart, which was labelled "Live Races Comparison of the guaranteed live races between the full SIS & Amrac services (based on 2006 figures)", showed an 88% share for SIS and 12% for AMRAC. Text beneath the pie chart stated "If you want a daily service, with a comprehensive range of betting opportunities that includes UK, Irish and other overseas' [sic] horseracing, greyhound meetings, as well as virtual and numbers products, SIS is the only supplier".

Issue

Amalgamated Racing Ltd (AMRAC) challenged whether:

1. the pie chart comparison was misleading because it failed to take into account elements of the AMRAC service in addition to racing and data from the AMRAC affiliated courses;

2. the claim "AMRAC propose to supply a service for £6,500* pa for content that currently costs bookmakers under £1,600 pa as part of the SIS service!" and accompanying comparison table were misleading because they believed that the SIS service cost £12,800 in total and that it was not possible to extract one element of the total package and pay for it separately as implied;

3. the claim "we now know that the cost of receiving racing from the 30 RUK courses will be four times as much as it does now" could be substantiated; and

4. the headline "Let's get the facts straight" was misleading because they believed some of the ads claims were factually inaccurate.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Satellite Information Services (SIS) pointed out that the ad appeared in a newspaper that specialised in racing.  They believed, therefore, readers would already be familiar with their services.  They said they did not intend to use the ad again.

1.  SIS explained that the pie chart showed a like-for-like comparison of the percentage of live racing covered by SIS and the percentage covered by the AMRAC service in 2006.  They said the pie chart was clearly labelled "Live Races" and was qualified with explanatory text; therefore, it was not misleading.  They submitted supporting information for the percentage demonstration.  The figures showed that, in 2006, SIS covered 20,923 live greyhound races, 3,792 Racing UK (RUK) races, which would be covered by AMRAC in future, 4,835 races at SIS courses, 514 free-to-air races broadcast by BBC and Channel 4 and 4,000 horse races broadcast from overseas.  They pointed out that this amounted to a total of 34,064 live races channelled through SIS in 2006; the number of races lost to AMRAC would be 3,792, which equated to 11.13% of the overall amount, leaving the total coverage for SIS following the introduction of AMRAC to be 30,272, or 88.89%, assuming the figures from 2006 remained constant.  

2.  SIS said they had confirmed the cost of AMRAC's service as £6,500.  They explained that they had provided a direct price comparison between AMRAC's service, which covered RUK courses only, and the element of their service that related to RUK courses, which were to be covered by AMRAC in future.  They had established that the cost of that coverage was £1,575.  They believed a comparison between the cost of their full service, which was £10,500 and not £12,800 as implied by the complainant, and that of AMRAC would not have been a measure of like-for-like because there were elements covered by SIS that were not part of the AMRAC service.  

SIS argued that the figure of £1,575 and table were not misleading, because it was clear they represented the rights payment and delivery charge to bookmakers in 2006 for the coverage of races from RUK courses for SIS and that equivalent cost for bookmakers to take the AMRAC service.  They pointed out that the table did not claim to represent their full service.  They argued that the statements ... as part of the SIS service ..." and ... the cost of 30 RUK courses as part of ...", which were prominently presented, ensured that the ad did not suggest that any element of the SIS service could be extracted and paid for separately.  They said it was clear that the RUK element was part of the SIS service and, as such, to highlight it as an individual element of the overall service was neither inaccurate nor misleading.

SIS explained that the only common content of their and AMRACs services was live horseracing from RUK courses; they believed the comparison was, therefore, reasonable.  They reiterated their view that the ads target market was familiar with SIS and the nature of their service and would not be misled.

SIS said the price comparison was based solely on the element of their charges that was directly attributable to the coverage of events from RUK courses.  They wished to highlight the fact that the only way a customer could receive RUK coverage was by subscribing to AMRAC and paying almost four times the cost of the equivalent service previously offered by SIS.  They said their invoices to customers clarified the cost of the individual elements of the service and, because the basis of the charges was already familiar to customers, they believed it was not unreasonable to identify a particular element of the overall service in the ad.  

SIS explained that their customers were businesses that subscribed to a business-critical service and with which they had a continuing relationship through consultations and trade associations. The ad was produced in the context of that established relationship.  

3.  SIS said the cost applied by them to cover RUK courses in 2006 was £1,575 and the equivalent cost for the service to be provided by AMRAC was scheduled to be £6,500; they argued that this was four times the amount previously charged by them.  

4.  SIS explained that the ad, which was headlined "Let's get the facts straight", was a direct response to AMRAC's marketing claims that they were going to offer a service comparable with SIS at reduced cost.  They pointed out that the table included a caveat which stated "Also includes some virtual and numbers content" with reference to the service offered by AMRAC to avoid any confusion or misleading impression.  They pointed out that AMRAC had incorrectly stated in their marketing that the cost of the SIS service was £12,800 and they believed this inaccuracy required correction.   

Assessment

1.  Not upheld

The ASA noted AMRAC argued that the "12%" claim was misleading because it did not take into account all the elements of the AMRAC service.

We also noted SIS had incorporated free-to-air content in their calculations, which we understood was not exclusive to SIS and we considered should not therefore be included in an account of the service provided solely by them.  We noted, however, having deducted the 514 races covered by free-to-air broadcasting, the percentage of live racing given over to AMRAC was 11.3%; it remained less than the 12% benchmark quoted by SIS.  

We considered that the pie chart, which included the 12% claim, was qualified by text that clarified its basis; SIS would continue to hold 88% of the live racing coverage based on figures recorded in 2006.

We recognised that AMRAC offered services in addition to live race coverage and also understood that they offered no greyhound racing coverage. We considered, however, the ad, particularly the claims "Comparison of the guaranteed live races between the full SIS & Amrac services" and "If you want a daily service, with a comprehensive range of betting opportunities that includes UK, Irish and other overseas' [sic] horseracing, greyhound meetings ...", made clear it referred to the total amount of race coverage, which included horse and greyhound racing offered by both companies.  We considered that, in the context of a comparison between the amount of all live racing coverage to be offered by each company using figures from 2006, the apportion of 12% to AMRAC was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) but did not find it in breach.  

2.  Upheld

We understood that it was not possible for customers to extract, and pay separately for, the elements of the SIS service that would be covered by AMRAC following its launch and also understood that the full cost of a subscription to SIS was £10,500.  

We considered that the initial impression given by the ad was that it was possible to purchase the elements of the SIS service used in the comparison for £1,575, whereas the cost to purchase the equivalent service from AMRAC would be £6,500.  We noted SIS had included a disclaimer, which stated "Also includes some virtual and numbers content" but considered that this did not go far enough to remove the implication that a price comparison was being made between two equivalent services.  

Because it was not possible to purchase only the element of the SIS service relating to RUK courses and the full cost of the SIS service was £10,500, we considered that the comparison was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).  

3.  Upheld

We understood that SIS had based the claim "... we now know that the cost of receiving racing from the 30 RUK courses will be four times as much as it does [sic] now ..." on the extraction from their overall service of the element that would be replaced by AMRAC and estimated it as a quarter of the value of the AMRAC service.  

We considered, however, that because it was not possible to extract only the element regarded by the comparison, and the actual, full cost to the consumer of receiving the SIS service was £10,500, the claim "... we now know that the cost of receiving racing from the 30 RUK courses will be four times as much as it does [sic] now ..." was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).  

4.  Upheld

We understood that the purpose of the ad was to try to clarify some claims which had appeared in marketing material from AMRAC and which SIS believed were inaccurate.  We considered, however, that the claim "Let's get the facts straight", in conjunction with information that compared only specific elements of one service with the total service provided by another, gave a misleading impression about the content of the ad.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).   

Action

We told SIS to remove from future marketing any implication that it was possible to extract and pay separately for one element of their service if that was not the case and not to re-use the heading "Let's get the facts straight" in future ads that compared specific elements of one service with the total service of another.  

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)