ASA Adjudication on Gems TV (UK) Ltd

Ad

A teleshopping ad, on Gems TV, showed a Tahitian white gold and diamond pearl ring. The presenter said “Now I’m just going to show you this beautiful Tahitian pearl. Have a look. A Tahitian pearl that looks like this [the presenter showed the ring to the camera]. Now it doesn’t matter whether you’re buying Tahitian pearls from Gems TV, Tiffany’s, Van Cleef, Arpels, Mikkimoto. It doesn’t matter where you buy one from, a Tahitian pearl is still a Tahitian pearl.” “Look at that with diamonds and white gold. This is what really strikes me about Gems TV is that you can buy exactly the same for a whole lot less.” “So just to reiterate … you could go and buy these from Mikkimoto, you could go to a designer like Chanel, or Bulgari, and buy a Tahitian pearl from them. Tahitian pearl is Tahitian pearl, full stop. It doesn’t matter whether we sell it on a piece of jewellery, or whether Van Cleef have done it, Boodles have done it, Harrods have done it, it's still the same, it's still a Tahitian pearl. It really is as black and white as that, as simple as that, and to me if you’re paying for something designer its, you know, because you want to show off that label or perhaps … the thought is it's made better, that’s not even the case, this is how ours is made, it's handcrafted [the presenter pointed to a video in the background showing jewellery being made] so to me it really is completely pointless buying the exact same ingredients. But you’re buying it for what, to walk away with a bag from that shop, with a box from that shop, you’re certainly buying from a very reputable source here at Gems television.”

Issue

One viewer believed the quality of the Gems TV Tahitian white gold and diamond pearl ring was exaggerated by repeated comparisons with brands such as Tiffanys, Van Cleef, Arpels and Mikkimoto.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Gems TV UK Ltd (Gems TV) said they had considered the statements made by the presenter and did not believe that the comparisons with designer brands in the ad exaggerated the quality of the Gems TV Tahitian white gold and diamond pearl ring. They said the comparisons were a means of comparing the value for money of the Gems TV ring and did not exaggerate its quality. They said the presenter was trying to make the point that designer brands charged a premium because of their perceived brand value, whereas the Gems TV Tahitian white gold and diamond pearl ring offered value for money compared to those brands.   

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that the ad made several comparisons between the Gems TV Tahitian white gold and diamond pearl ring and similar rings offered by designer brands such as Tiffany's, Van Cleef, Arpels and Mikkimoto. We also noted that, during the ad, the presenter pointed towards a clip on a TV screen that showed jewellery being made and commented " ... if you're paying for something designer ... the thought is it's made better, that's not even the case, this is how ours is made, its hand-crafted". We acknowledged the response from Gems TV but considered that claims such as "This is what really strikes me about Gems TV that you can buy exactly the same for a whole lot less" and "It doesn't matter whether we sell it on a piece of jewellery, or whether Van Cleef have done it, Boodles have done it, Harrods have done it, it's still the same, it's still a Tahitian pearl" went beyond comparisons of value for money and implied that the Gems TV Tahitian white gold and diamond pearl ring was of similar quality to similar rings from the named designer brands. Because Gems TV did not submit evidence that showed their Tahitian white gold and diamond pearl ring was of similar quality to similar rings offered by the named designer brands, we concluded the ad exaggerated the quality of the ring and was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), and 5.2.1 (Evidence to support claims).

Action

We told Gems TV not to repeat the ad in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)