ASA Adjudication on Dial-A-Deal Ltd

Ad

A regional newspaper ad, for a singing contest, was headlined "CAN YOU SING? NEW TV SHOW SEEKS MALE & FEMALE SINGERS WIN A MAJOR RECORDING CONTRACT". The ad invited readers to phone a premium rate telephone number and “Sing a capella for 1 minute down the phone”. Further text stated "Open to all ages and all genres" and small print at the bottom of the ad claimed “No minimum age”. A text box claimed "dialadeal THE WORLD'S 1ST PHONE BASED TV SINGING CONTEST".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because:

1. the Dial-A-Deal website stated that the final of the singing contest would not be broadcast on mainstream or digital TV but on an internet only channel;

2. although the ad claimed the competition was open to all ages, the Dial-A-Deal website stated that only those over 14 years old were eligible to audition; and

3. it did not make clear how the contest would be judged or how many entrants would be successful.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Dial-A-Deal said the TV show was to be distributed via their IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) broadcasting partner, Red Skin Records.  They said, however, that since the ad appeared that element of the competition had been postponed because they had been unable to agree terms with Red Skins Records.  They said that was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the competition, published on  their website, which stated that they did not guarantee that the programme would be broadcast.  

2. Dial-A-Deal said their advertising department had made an error in stating that the competition was open to all ages and the ad should have claimed "open to all persons aged 14 and above".  They said the ad had since been amended.  

3. Dial-A-Deal said they could not include all terms and conditions in the ad because of the costs involved.  They pointed out, however, the ad stated "T&Cs [sic] + info" and referred readers to their website for details of how many winners there would be and how the competition would be judged.  

Dial-A-Deal said they had not received an adequate response to the ad and had therefore decided to suspend the competition, with no plans to resume it.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Dial-A-Deal said they intended the show to be broadcast on IPTV but sent no evidence of that.    Because the show was no longer to be broadcast in any media and the ad referred only to a TV show (not IPTV), we considered that readers would infer that the show would be broadcast on TV.  Because it would not, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

The ASA noted Dial-A-Deal had made an error in stating the competition was open to all ages and the ad had since been amended.  

We considered the text "Open to all ages ... No minimum age" could only be interpreted to suggest there was no age restriction.  We concluded the promotion was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 34.1f (Restrictions).

3. Upheld

The ASA noted the ad stated Dial-A-Deals web address and indicated that terms and conditions applied; the website stated that there were to be three judges "drawn from the ranks of the music industrys most experienced A & R executives.  Plus a mystery guest!".  We noted the website also stated "three contestants from each of the four regional finals will then proceed to the grand televised final in London ... ".

We noted entry to the competition was via telephone only and therefore did not necessitate a visit to the Dial-A-Deal website.  Because the ad invited entry to the competition but did not specify the criteria for judging we considered the ad breached the Code.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 35.9f (Criteria for judging).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)