ASA Adjudication on Kite Software S.L
Kite Software S.L
Rhonda General Mitre, 126
08021 Barcelona
Spain
Date:
25 June 2008
Media:
Television
Sector:
Leisure
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
50379
Ad
A TV ad for the 'MP3 Classic', an MP3 player pre-loaded with classical music. On-screen text stated "MP3 Classic £99.99 (£9.95 P&P) delivery within 14 days". The ad was broadcast throughout December 2007.
Issue
A viewer, who ordered one of the MP3 players at the beginning of December, but had still not received it by February, challenged whether the ad was misleading.
BCAP TV Code
Response
Kite Software said they had contacted all customers who were awaiting delivery of the product and explained that they had had problems with their stocking levels due to a fire in their supplier's factory in China. They said they had offered customers a full refund or a discount. They said that shortly afterwards they had received a new delivery of the MP3 players and had been able to fulfil orders. They sent a copy of an e-mail they had sent to the complainant, which offered him a refund but said they would send him a free pair of speakers if he chose to wait for his order.
Clearcast pointed to the comments from Kite Software.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted Kite Software's explanation that there had been a fire at their supplier's factory at the beginning of December and that they had offered customers refunds. We noted, however, the viewer had had to contact Kite Software to find out why his order had not been delivered several weeks after it had been placed. We understood that Kite Software had unsuccessfully tried to deliver the product to the complainant in late January and refunded him in full in February. We also noted Kite Software had made efforts to compensate the complainant by offering him a free set of speakers. We were concerned, however, that the ad had continued to appear throughout December even though Kite Software knew there was a problem with supply.
Because Kite Software could not deliver orders within 14 days as claimed, we concluded that the ad as misleading.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 11.2.2 (Direct Marketing).
Action
We told the advertisers to ensure that they could supply products as advertised.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)