ASA Adjudication on Marcandi Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for MadBid.com, stated in voice-over "How about scooping some of the latest gadgets for up to 98 per cent off the recommended retail price? At MadBid.com you can! You won't believe some of the bargains people have walked away with. Like this brand new Ford Focus for £800, a MacBook Air £47, this iPhone just £30, and this TV for just £23! Go to MadBid.com now and get your own crazy bargain!".

Issue

Three viewers challenged whether the ad was misleading, because:

1. it did not make clear that MadBid.com was an auction site and each bid cost participants £1.50; and

2. it was unclear if the prices quoted in the ad also included the costs associated with making the bids.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. & 2. MadBid.com said their name included the word "bid", which appeared in both text and voice-over throughout the ad. They argued that the ad also included their logo, which featured the character Mr Madbid holding an auction gavel, and therefore believed it was clear that they were an auction site.

They said they were in the process of making a new ad, which would include the text "Prices include VAT and P&P. Cost of bids excluded".

Clearcast believed it was clear from the name of the advertiser, the cartoon character holding an auctioneers gavel, and familiarity with the concept and language of similar auctions such as Bid-up TV, that MadBid.com was an auction site.

Clearcast said when they approved the ad they believed viewers would understand that bidding costs were involved, because the cost of the products shown in the ad were a fraction of their retail cost. However, during the course of approving the new ad, they agreed with MadBid.com to include on-screen text to make clear that the cost of bidding was not included in the prices shown on-screen.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that it was clear from both the name of the advertiser and the ad itself that MadBid.com was an auction site, and that viewers were therefore likely to understand the type of service being offered. However, we understood that each bid cost participants £1.50 and considered that that was a significant condition that should have been included in the ad. Because the ad did not make clear that there was a cost attached to making a bid, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

2. Upheld

We understood that MadBid.com operated as a penny auction, where each bid on a product raised its price by one penny at a time. We also understood that each bid made on an item cost £1.50 and that if a participant bid 15 times on one item, for example, they would have to pay £22.50 on top of the closing auction price. We considered that the ad gave the impression that the featured products were purchased for the prices shown on-screen. However, we understood that the prices quoted in the ad did not include the cost winning customers had incurred in bidding for those products, and we therefore considered that the quoted prices did not represent the actual overall cost paid by the successful bidders. We concluded therefore that the ad gave a misleading impression of the cost of the products featured.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 (Misleading advertising) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing).

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)