Ad description

A TV ad for BetVictor featured two men talking whilst watching a football match. They stated, "It's all well and good you having your new BetVictor logo everywhere, and I know you gave the best prices most often in Premier League football last season, but what you need is a gimmick", "Gimmick?", "Gimmick. How's about a bet on custard wrestling in play?", "Nah", "Mascot shaving?", "I don't think so. Now beat it", "Advanced sheep dogging?", "Definitely no", "Morris dancing on ice on your mobile?", "I think we'll just stick to best prices, most often, in the Premier League last season", "It's not custard wrestling", "No, it's not".

Superimposed text at the beginning of the ad stated "… Source oddschecker.com September 2011 See www.BetVictor.com/bestprices for verification".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claim that BetVictor gave the best prices most often in the Premier League last season was misleading.

Response

Victor Chandler International Ltd t/a BetVictor (BetVictor) said they had based the claim purely on data released by Oddschecker in a press release at the end of the 2010/11 Premiership season, and that the verification for the claim was on their website. They said that Oddschecker was the foremost online betting odds comparison service. At the end of the season they issued a press release that detailed which bookmaker provided the best overall value, based on their criteria and on the entire season of data. They said they were merely using a title that had been awarded to them and had clearly been substantiated by Oddschecker. They said Oddschecker were extremely familiar with complex betting data, given the huge volume of betting data they handled every day. They said the metrics used by Oddschecker to calculate the Best Price Bookmaker award were solely their own, and BetVictor had not had any involvement in the compilation of this.

They confirmed that Oddschecker's calculations had been based on rankings of best prices offered by bookmakers on match results in the five days before each Premiership match. Snapshots had been taken every two hours, and the results ranked in order of the best odds. BetVictor had the best odds most often overall. They said that, in response to this complaint, they went back to Oddschecker who rechecked the data using match day prices only, which also showed that BetVictor had the best prices most often.

Clearcast said they requested supporting evidence for the claim "best prices more often in Premier League football" and received data that, in their view, supported the claim. They believed the claim was straightforward and clear, and that it was supported by the Oddschecker data. They also pointed out that superimposed text included a website address for verification of the claim.

Assessment

Upheld

The complainant believed the claim that BetVictor gave the best prices most often in the Premier League last season was misleading, because the Oddschecker data was based on averages over five days, whereas they believed most betting took place on match day, and because it didn't make clear the claim related to the match result market only. BetVictor did not confirm what proportion of bets were usually placed on match days, but the ASA understood this was when most bets were likely to be placed. The claim was based on analysis by Oddschecker in which they used data from the five days up to and including match day. The ad did not state for which days prices had been analysed, but this was clearly stated on BetVictor's website. The complainant was concerned that the result could have been skewed if BetVictor's prices had been significantly better in days one, two and three when fewer bets were placed. However, we considered that the evidence supplied by BetVictor, that included further analysis by Oddschecker, demonstrated this was not the case and so we did not consider it was misleading for this reason.

However, the complainant also believed the claim was misleading because the ad did not make clear the claim related to the match result market only. We understood that there were numerous betting markets for football matches, of which the match result (win, lose or draw) was just one. We considered that, in the absence of further clarification, consumers would be unclear as to which betting market the best prices claim referred. The verification on BetVictor's website did include this information; however, we considered that the claim should have been clarified within the ad. Because the ad did not make clear the claim related to the match result market only we concluded that it was misleading.

The ad breached BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.2 3.2 Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told BetVictor to make it clear which betting market they were referring to when making similar claims in future.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.2     3.9    


More on