ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Brimardon Systems

Complaint

Objection to an ad for a horse racing betting system. The ad was headlined "The Brimardon System" and featured the claims "Exceptional profits, Consistent Success, Total on-going support to make it happen for you", "£4,223.50 IN PROFIT IN SEPTEMBER (SO FAR) ...", "... £229,000 PROFIT FROM 31/10/98 to 10/10/04", "EVERY YEAR A WINNING YEAR", "WEEKLY PROFIT OF £730 ON AVERAGE" and "We are not tipsters, we have the most advanced and unique system on the market".

The complainant challenged:

1. the claim "We are not tipsters, we have the most advanced and unique system on the market";

2. the earnings claims and

3. the claims "Exceptional profits, Consistent Success" and "EVERY YEAR A WINNING YEAR".

4. The ASA challenged whether the ad implied Brimardons' system was very likely or certain to turn a profit.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Adjudication

REVISED ADJUDICATION

This adjudication replaces that published on the 22nd February 2006. The wording of point 2 has been revised, although the complaint remains upheld.

1. Complaint upheld

Brimardon Systems (Brimardon) said the Oxford dictionary defined a tipster as "a person who gives tips as to the likely winner of a race". They said a typical tipster comes up with a tip by his own form study or from inside information. They said their system was software, not a person, and had been developed over the last 20 years. They submitted a copy of their software to demonstrate how it worked. They said the software made calculations using more than 100 different variables for each horse in each race covering its whole career to arrive at the final rating whereas tipsters would look at the form of a horse's last couple of races. They said their software also gave video help pages with sound commentaries, betting advice, the ability to show races, the best ratings of the day and two different betting calculators; they said there was nothing similar on the market.

The ASA noted the software allowed many variables to be analysed. We also noted the software had more functions than just rating horses. We considered, however, that because they recommended betting on particular horses, Brimardon were tipsters, regardless of the method they used for arriving at their recommendations. We concluded that the claim was misleading and asked Brimardon not to repeat it.

2. Complaint upheld

Brimardon said they had proofed their bets with the Racing Post, since 1998, and chartered accountants, from 2002 onwards. Their chartered accountants submitted evidence that Brimardon had proofed bets with them. This evidence was not dated. They said they had added the text "Bets 1/2 point to 5 points. £100 a point to advised prices/SP" to bring their advertising into line with a previous ASA adjudication. They said they had received verbal approval from CAP in 2003 that that approach was acceptable. They believed the ASA required that ads should include the starting bank needed and the total amount staked, which they said were neither practical nor realistic because the consumer, not Brimardon themselves, determined the amount of disposable income they were willing to spend and would also be using money that they had accumulated through winning to bet further, making it difficult to calculate how much of their own money consumers would need for a starting bank. They also believed no other ad in the industry mentioned the total amount staked and they were the only advertisers who stated the variance of betting points plus how much they backed each point.

We noted Brimardon stated in their ad the maximum each stake could cost. We also noted that they had submitted information about the tips on which the claim was based and evidence that they proofed their tips with an independent third party since 2002, as required by the CAP Help Note on Marketing for Betting Tipster Services. This evidence, however, was not complete because their chartered accountants had not shown that all the "proofed" tips had been submitted before the race. We were not satisfied that the Racing Post's proofing system was robust enough to underpin earning claims. Furthermore, we considered that, because Brimardon had not stated how much money was staked in total to achieve the claimed profits, they had not demonstrated that they were communicated in a meaningful context. We considered that ads for tipping services should state the total amount staked in order to achieve advertised profit but need not state how much money readers needed to have available before joining. We asked Brimardon to ensure that in future, they held evidence to show that proofed tips had been submitted before races and also they stated the total amount staked to achieve their claimed earnings.

3. Complaint upheld

Brimardon sent details of the forecast from 31/10/98 to 10/10/04, which their records suggested had produced a profit of £231,238. The advertiser said the word "exceptional" was defined in the Oxford dictionary as much greater than usual. Whilst they considered that this definition was subjective, they believed that their profit total of £231,238 entitled them to use the claim. They also believed because they had made a profit every year they were entitled to use the claims "Consistent Success" and "EVERY YEAR A WINNING YEAR".

We noted Brimardon's records suggested they had made a profit every year in the stated period of time and that this profit amounted to £231,238. Because we were not satisfied that the forecasts had been adequately proofed, for the reasons given under point 2 above, we considered that Brimardon had not substantiated the claims. We asked them to remove the claims from future advertising.

4. Upheld

We considered that the claims "Exceptional profits, Consistent Success" and "EVERY YEAR A WINNING YEAR" did not necessarily imply Brimardons' system was very likely or certain to turn a profit. We considered, however, that the claim "Total on-going support to make it happen for you", which appeared immediately alongside those claims, implied readers were very likely or certain to turn a profit. We asked Brimardon to remove the claim "Total on-going support to make it happen for you!" from further advertising.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty), 7.1 (Truthfulness).