ASA Adjudication on AD Associates

Ad

A direct mailing for a racing tipster. The mailing included a graph that showed the success of the system over a 31 day period; text stated “Here’s the proof […] Proofed in Advance to the UK’s most respected betting authority! 174 points clear in only 31 days of betting (204 points at Betfair SP- 114 points profit at official SP) … But that’s not all […] Proofed to Racing-Index”. A leaflet in the mailing stated “A total of 174 points profit in only 4 weeks- that’s an incredible profit of £3,480.00 using only £20 stakes […] All selections returned a 67% strike rate!! […] This is a once in a lifetime chance to be part of something very special … You’ll be guaranteed profits in excess of £3,000.00 … And you’ll be given all the bets over the phone every day for the next two months!”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1.  Racing Index proofed the Bill Harris betting system;

2. the ad misleadingly implied that stakes were made at £20 because the complainant understood that the actual stake was £110.40;

3.  the strike rate of 67% could be substantiated; and

4. the claim "Youll be guaranteed profits in excess of £3,000.00" could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1.  AD Associates (AD) said that Bill Harris proofed selections to Racing Index using their Pro Punter Betting website.  They said, throughout April 2009, Bill Harris was required to proof bets each day, four hours before the races took place.  They pointed out that a Racing Index article acknowledged that they had proofed the system, albeit indirectly.

2.  AD argued that stakes did not need to be as high as £110.40 but acknowledged that stakes would need to be increased after a losing bet which they believed was common with all betting systems.  

3.  AD sent us a copy of a Racing Index web page which they believed demonstrated that bets for Bill Harris via Pro Punter Betting were proofed by an independent third party in advance of races.  They argued that between 1 April and 1 May 2009, there were 21 winning days out of 31 and that the strike rate was 67.74%.  

4.  AD believed the Racing Index figures demonstrated a profit of 204 points giving £4,081 profit with a Betfair Starting Price (BSP) and 174 points profit or £3,480 using a Starting Price (SP) which was representative of odds available to consumers in the high street or on-course at the time races started.  They said the mailing therefore had underestimated the potential profits.

In addition, AD sent us a list of race results for the most recent seven-week period which detailed the date of the race, the horse, the result and the profit of races from 18 June to 13 August.  The results showed they had made £3,244 profit which was in excess of the brochure's claim of a £3,000 return over an eight-week period. They believed this substantiated the claim and that there was nothing untruthful in their brochure.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted AD's assertion that the Bill Harris system was proofed by Racing Index and that an article on the Racing Index website stated "AD Associates did [...] proof selections to Racing Index in advance of the races and 204 points profit". However, we also understood that Racing Index had publicly stated that they neither proofed nor endorsed the Bill Harris system but had only proofed tips for the Pro Punter Betting website.  The ad stated the Bill Harris system was "proofed to Racing-Index" but, because it did not make clear bets were proofed by proxy and readers were likely to understand that the Racing Index proofed Bill Harris directly, we concluded the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2.  Upheld

We noted the ad stated a profit of £3,480 could be achieved "using only £20 stakes!", but also noted AD's capture of the Racing Index website from 1 April to 1 May 2009 for Pro Punter Betting, on which the figures were based, stated that an average stake was 5.52 points, or £110.40, with some bets staking almost double this.   We considered most readers were likely to infer from the claim that profits could be achieved by placing bets of £20 only, because that was not the case, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

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

3.  Upheld

We noted AD's evidence that bets proofed to the Racing Index for April 2009 stated that out of a total of 81 selections, 21 were successful providing a success percentage of 23.6%.  We acknowledged AD's argument that their strike rate had been based on the number of "winning days" over a 31-day period, but considered that most readers familiar with betting would expect a strike rate to be based on the number of successful selections. Because that was not the case we concluded the claim was likely to mislead.

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

4. Upheld

We considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim that the forecasts were very likely or certain to turn the stated level of profit.  We noted the uncertainties involved in gambling based services and understood that profits for such services as betting tipsters often fluctuated over time. We therefore considered that even in the event that AD could substantiate the claim after the fact, the claim, at the time of publication was supported only by the track record data that the advertisers had provided.  Because we considered that such data could not substantiate such a strong projection of profitability, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

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

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)