ASA Adjudication on DM Digital Television Ltd

Ad

A 30-minute ad for Snober Heights was shown on DM Digital TV. The ad started with shots of an eagle and a caption on the top of the screen stated “Snober Height presented by” and then another caption on the bottom of the screen stated “Liaqat Hanif and Snober Zareen”. The eagle flew away and on-screen text stated “Bringing you the properties from around the world” over images of the desert and then a pyramid. On-screen text stated “Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Dubai” over shots of the Taj Mahal, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Eiffel Tower and a house. Liaquat Hanif appeared on-screen with a boat as a backdrop. An on-screen caption stated “LIVE CALL 0901 XXX XXXX” and was shown during the entire presentation.

Liaqat Hanif said “We are always striving to bring new projects and bring the best deals for you, wherever you go. We think that we should find the best deals for our viewers so that, wherever you invest, you remember us and pray for us that we have found and brought great projects to you and awareness about where the great investments are and where the benefits are … So, the good news today is that we bring you a great project from Istanbul, prices starting from £38,000 ... Developers are those big and popular ones who have very big projects and very cheap prices and high standards … This [Istanbul] is a very big commercial city with a good rental income. Rental income -I will say, we could not get a reservation at a hotel; with great difficulty, we got a room so therefore, if you want to rent out an apartment, there is a shortage of apartments. This is why your investment in property will always be in rental demand. Your property rented out, these developers are even giving you a rental guarantee and prices starting from £38,000 for one bedroom.”

“Besides that, we are offering a special price in Fethiye, Kemer town. The name of the project is Country Club: two bedroom apartments for £49,000, four bedroom villas with swimming pool, fully furnished for £125,000. So, this is a great project. Other than that, last week, you all saw that Manchester United Football Club was bought by a Dubai Sheikh. With that, you could see that in the UK all Manchester United fans were very happy that they had got the financial boost. This equates to the same: by buying the land you have increased its value, so that everybody will go for it. So, in Kusadasi we have a project in which Manchester United have a 25% share of the development. This is the Seal of Manchester United. This will boost the projects’ value and rental for twelve months … This project is 25% owned by Manchester United and 25% owned by Hestiun Football Club. The rest of the investment is being sold by us ...”

“Let’s watch this documentary on Istanbul that we made last week. This project is not to be missed.” DM Digital then showed a sales video tape of the proposed development. The voice-over stated “The development has every aspect that creates a township for a well-rounded lifestyle of luxury and convenience of peace and community living. Every modern amenity, from shopping to dining and entertainment, enhances the value of the investment for every resident beyond expectations. With 100% freehold status, just a 20 minute drive from the airport is the site of an ambitious and expensive mixed-use project, four 25 storey towers are already under construction here to fulfil hundreds of dreams of owning a home. The unique project in terms of design amenities and mixed use of surroundings for those who have ever dared to dream of a home where you get to enjoy every modern amenity and within the health surroundings of nature and at the same time make a sensible investment ...”. The images showed several brand new apartments with all the modern conveniences.

Liaqat Hanif said “this was the documentary which we showed you … As Istanbul is split in two areas, Eastern Istanbul and European, this project is within the European area. All the big companies in the world, you can say famous, have head offices being built in Istanbul. Big changes and developments are taking place, to the extent that it has become a large, busy commercial city. I recommend that your prices will double by completion. The realtor shows phase-one prices have doubled: the values exceed £78,000 for a one bedroom apartment. As we are in phase two now, we are selling them at £38,000, with a three year completion date, when the value will be close to £80,000, an excellent opportunity to invest … We will go to a short commercial break, please make a note of my telephone numbers and e-mail me or phone me and I will give you all the information you need and will take you on a viewing trip for £99.”

DM Digital TV then showed what looked like a tourist board showreel for Turkey with a caption stating “viewing trip only £99 per person Liaqathanif@hotmail.com

Issue

1.  Monitoring staff challenged whether the ad used a programme-style presentation in a way that might confuse viewers into thinking that they were watching an impartial review of properties for sale abroad instead of an ad.  

Monitoring staff challenged whether evidence substantiated the claims:

2. Liaqat Hanif obtained the best property deals.

3. The developments referred to in the ad were "very cheap but of a high standard".

4. Istanbul had a shortage of apartments so rental properties would always be in demand; all the big, or famous companies in the world were making their headquarters in Istanbul and property prices would increase when Turkey joined the EU.

5. The property deals referred to in the ad were exclusive offers available to Liaqat Hanif customers only and whether he had first-hand information before prices were increased.

6. Manchester United and Hestiun Football Club both had a 25% share in the Kusadasi project.

7. The properties were 100% freehold.

8. The prices would double by the time the project was completed; the one-bedroom apartment was initially sold for £38,000, was now £78,000 and would be £80,000 by completion (phase three).

9. The launch price had been £69,000 and the property was now being offered for £67,500 but Hanif Liaqat had been given the authority to sell it at only £49,000, or £45,000 for a cash buyer.

10. The price for a four-bedroom villa was £145,000 and, with Hanif Liaqats offer of a £20,000 reduction, was "cheap" in comparison with other, similar properties in Turkey.

11. The money invested would increase and investors would make "quick money" or double their money.

12. The references to "investment" complied with rule 9.5 (c).

13. The text height of the price information for the premium-rate telephone line complied with rule 5.4.2 Superimposed text.

BCAP TV Code

Response

As a result of an enquiry by Ofcom, DM Digital TV stated that they considered the broadcast was a teleshopping advertisement.  They stated that the ad had been taken off air some time ago.  They had thought the ad had been cleared by Clearcast.  They acknowledged that the ad had changed from what had been originally proposed.  They added that they had dismissed the person responsible for clearing the ad.

1. DM Digital TV stated that Snober Heights was a teleshopping programme and the distinction between the programme and the ads was obvious.

2.  DM Digital TV claimed that Liaqat Hanif had merely claimed "always we try to get the best projects and bring you the best deals.  Wherever we go we try to get the best deals for our viewers.  Pray for us that we have found you the best deals."  DM Digital TV said the host had merely emphasised that he was trying to get the best deals, not that he had.

3.  DM Digital TV submitted the sales brochures of several real estate developments in Turkey.

4.  DM Digital TV claimed the sense had been lost in translation.  Liaqat Hanif was merely stating that apartments were in short supply and demand for the project would always be strong. DM Digital TV explained that Liaqat Hanif had said "a lot of the big or famous companies", not "all the big or famous companies".  They added that, as the capital of Turkey, some, if not a lot, of the large Turkish companies would obviously have their headquarters in Istanbul.

5.  DM Digital TV stated that their agent had confirmed that the advertised offers were exclusive to Liaqat Hanif customers and that he had first-hand information before prices increased; they had no evidence to show that other developers were offering the same "exclusive offers".

6.  DM Digital TV submitted a page from a sales brochure; it stated "the partnership between Hestiun and Manchester United Football Club (MUFC) brings together two winning teams sharing common values.  MUFC and Hestiun have experienced specialists in their own respective fields and so the worlds best football team has put its trust in the best overseas property consultants.  Hestiuns property developments reach as far and wide as the Manchester United fan base and the association with such a strong brand as MUFC will ensure.

7.  DM Digital TV submitted the price list of three developments; it stated that the properties were 100% freehold.

8.  DM Digital TV submitted a sales brochure entitled "Property Growth in Turkey; Costs are based on a new, three bedroom semi-detached villa (50 square metre + 50 square metre plus terrace) Source: Inside Track Property Magazine."  It stated that the predicted growth for 2007 was 30% or £108,750, 20% or £136,600 for 2008 and 30% or £163,200 for 2009.

9.  DM Digital TV submitted a price list that stated that a two-bedroom apartment with shared pool cost £67,500.

10.  DM Digital TV submitted a price list that stated that a four-bedroom villa with private pool cost £145,000.  They also submitted the price list of some other four-bedroom villas the prices of which ranged from £159,600 to £168,600.

11. DM Digital TV submitted the sales brochure submitted in response 8 and added that that and the difference in price between the villas was how investors would "make quick money" or "double their money".

12. DM Digital TV acknowledged that the ad breached rule 9.5 (c).

13.  DM Digital TV did not respond on this point.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA was concerned that DM Digital TV did not realise that a teleshopping presentation was an advertisement.  We considered that, because the ad had used a programme-style presentation with opening and closing titles and because the presenter had referred to the ad as a "programme" and "this documentary is in English" and " ... programme time is finishing you will see our advertising at the end of the programme.  Call me soon after the programme and I will be waiting for your call and will take you to Turkey" it would be unclear to viewers whether the presentation was a programme or an advertisement.  

The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 2.1 (Separation of advertisements and programmes), 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 (b) and 2.1.2 (c).

2. Upheld

We understood that Liaqat Hanif had stated "we are always striving to bring new projects and bring the best deals for you, wherever you go.  We think that we should find the best deals for our viewers so that wherever you invest ... we have found and brought great projects to you and awareness about where the great investments are and where the benefits are."  We considered that viewers would believe that Liaqat Hanif offered the best property deals and, because we had not seen evidence to substantiate it, we considered that the claim was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

4. Upheld

We noted Liaqat Hanif had stated that he had found it hard to find a hotel in Istanbul and therefore if one wanted to rent out ones apartment there would always be a demand for it.  Later on in the ad, Liaqat Hanif stated that, if buyers could hold on to their investment in Istanbul, it would be even better because property prices would increase when Turkey became part of Europe.  Because we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that it was hard to find hotel accommodation or apartments, we considered that the claim was misleading.  We understood that no decision had been made over Turkeys entry in to Europe and so we considered that that claim was misleading.  We considered the ad implied a recent increase in companies choosing to locate their headquarters in Istanbul, with the knock-on effect being an increase in demand for accommodation.  Because we had seen no evidence to substantiate that claim, we considered that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

3., 5. & 7. Upheld

Because we had not seen evidence to substantiate the claims, we considered that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

6. Upheld

We understood that Manchester United Football Club had offered its brand as part of a sponsorship deal to Hestiun.  But, because we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that MUFC or Hestiun Football Club had a 25% share in the Kushadasi project, we considered that the claim was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

8., 9. & 10. Upheld

Because we had seen only sales brochures and price lists to substantiate the claimed prices, valuations and price comparisons, we considered that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing).

11. Upheld

Because we had not seen information to substantiate the claims that the money invested would increase and investors would make "quick money" or double their money, we considered that the statements were misleading.  

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.2.1 (Evidence), and 5.1 (Misleading advertising).

12. Upheld

We considered that the references to investment" advertised investments that were not regulated or otherwise permitted under the Financial Services and Markets Act.  We considered that the ad promoted an unacceptable category of investment.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 9.5 (c) (Unacceptable categories).

13. Upheld

We considered that the text height of the price information for the premium-rate telephone line was too small to be legible.  

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 5.4.2 (Superimposed text).

Action

We concluded that the ad must not be shown again in its present form and that the product should not be advertised without adequate substantiation for the claims made for it.  

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)