ASA Adjudication on Sit-Up Ltd

Ad

A teleshopping ad, for a diamond ring, was shown on Bid TV on sale for £2552. The presenter said “We are looking for £1700 …”. The on-screen graphic changed to £699 and the presenter said “Whoa, whoa, whoa - stop everything! That’s gone to £69 …” The music stopped and the graphic disappeared from the screen. The presenter continued “No, no, it has. Put it back on”. The graphic reappeared. The presenter continued “Now, let me just tell you, that was meant to go to £1699. Now, I tell you all day long, that is our mistake, and it is, alright. You have got this now at £699. You need to dial the number. Go get it valued, You’ve just got an absolute bargain”.

Issue

The viewer challenged whether the presentation and the claim "that was meant to go to £1699. Now, I tell you all day long, that is our mistake, and it is, alright. You have got this now at £699" misleadingly exaggerated the value of the ring.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Sit-Up Ltd, trading as Bid TV, said the presenter expected the price to lower to £1699. However, when the on-screen graphics displayed a price of £699, they said the presenter made an error in stating that they would honour that price. Sit-Up said that, in the heat of the moment, the error was not rectified by either the presenter or the producer and they subsequently sold the product at the incorrect price of £699. They explained that they had taken steps to ensure the error would not occur again and offered refresher training for the staff involved.

Sit-Up refuted that the error misleadingly exaggerated the value of the ring and said the expected sale price of £1699 was representative of its market value. They sent us three insurance valuations that gave an average valuation of £2583. They therefore believed that the £1699 price would have represented good value for viewers.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that Sit-Up was entitled to set a starting price for its reverse auction providing it did not mislead. However, although we noted Sit-Ups assertion that the incorrect price had been displayed in error, we considered that the presenters comment, "Now, I tell you all day long, that is our mistake, and it is, alright. You have got this now at £699 ... Go get it valued, youve just got an absolute bargain" when the ring was displayed at £699 alongside a dialogue that said this price was offered in error implied the start price was an amount materially related to the usual retail price which viewers could expect for the ring.

We noted Sit-Up had sent us insurance valuations for the ring, but understood that insurance valuations were often higher than the retail value. We were therefore concerned that Sit-Up had not provided independent valuation of the ring including certification of the gemstone grade in question, that demonstrated that the higher price of £2552 was a genuine market value of the product. We considered that, albeit an error, the substantial price drop exaggerated the potential saving viewers could make on the market value of the item, which had not been substantiated. We therefore concluded the presentation was likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards rules 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 (Misleading advertising).

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Sit-Up to ensure they held robust substantiation to demonstrate the market value of items and to take greater care with pricing in future live presentations.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)