ASA Adjudication on Sit-Up Ltd

Ad

Two reverse auctions for different products aired at the same time (31 July at 11.30 am), with the same presenter, on separate channels, (Bid TV and Price-drop TV) and were both described as live; ‘LIVE’ was marked on screen during the auctions.

a. one presentation, broadcast live on Bid TV on 31 July at 11.30 am, featured a presenter hosting a live reverse auction, He described the features of a bed linen set. The auction started with 75 sets for sale at £51.49 each, which were eventually sold to all bidders at £5.99. Throughout the sales auction, the presenter drew the viewers’ attention to the prices and the price drops and read out text messages and bids from viewers. The auction ended when all the items were sold.

b. a second presentation, which was pre-recorded, but was broadcast with live sales auction information, was shown on Price-drop TV on 31 July at 11.30 am, and featured the same presenter hosting a different reverse auction. He described the features of a toaster. The auction started with 40 items for sale at £34.99 each, which were eventually sold to all bidders at £4.99. A two-minute countdown clock was featured on screen and began to count down at around 6 minutes after the auction began. The auction ended when the countdown finished; there were 21 items left.

Issue

Three viewers challenged whether both auctions were live because the same presenter appeared on different channels at the same time, selling different items.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Sit-Up Ltd trading as Bid TV and Price-drop TV (Sit Up) stated that on Bid TV the hosts presentation and the auction were both broadcast live, whereas the broadcast on Price-drop TV was a pre-recorded hosts presentation, but a live auction, with 'live' auction graphics on screen.  They explained that they pre-recorded a clean feed of the hosts presentation, minus graphics, which was broadcast overlaid with 'live' auction graphics which enabled viewers to see the live buying information when making their purchases. They said the phone number, item price and quantity shown in the graphics were all live and the sales shown by the graphic would be entirely unique to the output in question, so viewers could buy products as normal.  They said the host did not refer specifically to any live 'real time' detail on the graphics, for example, price or quantity shown, to ensure the presentation did not mislead.  They believed the difference to the viewer was minimal, because both channels were offering live auctions and viewers would not be materially affected by the broadcast in making their purchases.  They explained that, in both cases, auctions ended when all the items were sold. However, when there were not enough buyers, a countdown clock was placed on screen and the auction ended wheneither all the products sold out and the sale closed, or the countdown clock finished and the sale closed; any unsold products were returned to their warehouse for future product sales.  They acknowledged that using the same host on both channels could cause confusion to some viewers and stated they would not show the same host simultaneously presenting different items for sale on different channels at the same time again.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that, whether a hosts presentation was pre-recorded or live, the sales auctions were always live and there were no fundamental differences in the way they were carried out. Both channels carried out live reverse auctions, where the prices fell in regular increments from the start price and ended when all the items were sold out or when a countdown clock finished.  In both cases the sale finished with all consumers paying the price marked for a particular product on screen at the end of the auction.  

We noted that 'LIVE' was marked on screen during the auctions and acknowledged that some viewers might understand the hosts presentation on Bid TV was also live, when it was pre-recorded; only the sales auction was live.  We also acknowledged that some viewers might be confused by seeing the same presenter selling different items live on different channels at the same time.  However, we noted that there were no claims that the hosts presentation on Price-drop TV was being conducted live, and the host made no references to the specific bids that were coming in or to the prices at which the items were currently selling, whereas we noted that his presentation on Bid TV referred to the pricing throughout and he read out text messages from viewers who were watching and had just made a purchase.

Because the information about the auctions and sales was live on both channels and consumers could rely on live sale information when making their purchase decisions and bids, we concluded that the broadcasts were unlikely to materially mislead viewers.  

We investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising), but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)