ASA Adjudication on Kim Rose
31 Hanover Buildings
13 June 2012
Number of complaints:
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated of which both were Upheld.
A regional press ad for a gold buyer, viewed in March 2012, stated "IMPORTANT NOTICE COME TO THE GOLD BUYER WITH 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE Highest prices guaranteed, we offer up to 20% more for your unwanted jewellery Open 7 days a week World Renowned Celebrity Jeweller Kim Rose if trading at [company addresses]".
The complainant challenged whether the claims:
1. "40 YEARS EXPERIENCE"; and
2. "Highest prices guaranteed, we offer up to 20% more for your unwanted jewellery";
were misleading and could be substantiated.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
1. Kim Rose said he commenced work in the jewellery trade at Bermondsey market in 1970, where he had a Saturday job from the age of 13 years. He stated that he then opened a shop in Southampton in 1976 and remained there until 1989, when he opened Eclipse Jewellers, from which he had been trading ever since.
2. Kim Rose said he offered up to 20% more for unwanted jewellery than that offered by his competitors and that, generally, he would rely on figures quoted by customers. On occasions when a customer's quotation was well above the going rate, Mr Rose stated he would ask for evidence of the offer they had received. He said he was approaching customers to ask them to support the claim that he offered up to 20% more.
The ASA noted Kim Rose stated he started working in the jewellery trade at the age of 13, however, we considered that consumers would understand the claim "40 YEARS EXPERIENCE" to mean that Kim Rose had 40 years' experience as a professional jeweller. Because we had not seen any evidence from Kim Rose that he had 40 years' experience, we therefore concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
We acknowledged that Kim Rose said he had asked some customers to produce evidence of competitor offers and had asked customers to support the claim that he offered a higher price, however we noted we not seen any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim. We noted we had not seen any evidence that Kim Rose offered up to 20% more than his competitors for unwanted jewellery. Because we had also not seen any evidence that Kim Rose offered the "Highest prices guaranteed", we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Kim Rose not to make claims without holding adequate substantiation in future.