Ad description
Teleshopping broadcasts, on Bid TV, during which presenters stated the prices of available items. For example, in relation to a sterling silver tanzanite and topaz ring, the presenter stated, "… please remember you only pay the price we stop at … just under half a carat of tanzanite for under thirty five, in fact under thirty three … under twenty five …" Various prices appeared prominently on-screen during the presentation and, at the end of the broadcast, text stated "everyone pays £24.97". Text that appeared to the left of the screen throughout the broadcast stated "0.41ct AA Grade Tanzanite & White Topaz Ring, Set In Hallmarked 925 Sterling Silver".
In another broadcast, related to a gold-plated black enamel ring, the presenter stated, "How about thirty … that's it, fiver … five pounds … under four pounds … one pound, go … for a pound, you can't get a kids' plastic sweetie ring for that can you …" Various prices appeared prominently on-screen during the presentation and, at the end of the broadcast, text stated "everyone pays £1.00". Text that appeared to the left of the screen throughout the broadcast stated "Exclusively His 18ct Gold Plated Black Enamel Ring".
Smaller text next to the prices of the items in both presentations stated "GB mainland £7.99 p&p per item". Text at the bottom of the screen, which also appeared throughout the broadcast below a larger phone number, stated "£1.53 per call from a BT landline". Scrolling text, which appeared during the first part of the presentations, included "buying is easy with bid - dial the number - listen to the message - press 1 to confirm your purchase … everyone pays the lowest price".
Issue
The complainants, who had each seen a different teleshopping broadcast on Bid TV, challenged whether the ads were misleading, because they believed the additional costs for postage and telephone calls were not made sufficiently clear.
Response
Bid TV said all viewers who wished to purchase a product from live shows were charged a premium rate fee for phone calls, which was communicated consistently and clearly in the bottom line of on-screen text during all advertising presentations. They said post and packaging costs were also displayed, however, the charges were not normally mentioned verbally, because they believed it was not required to do so when the costs were already made clear via the on-screen text. Bid TV said the scrolling text "buying is easy with bid - dial the number - listen to the message - press 1 to confirm your purchase … everyone pays the lowest price" did not include the phone number, which meant viewers would have to look elsewhere on the screen for the number and would find it shown with the cost of a call from a BT landline.
They said the price of the item being promoted was displayed, as it fell, below the postage and packing details so that cost would also be clear when viewers looked at the price. By the time "everyone pays £24.97" appeared, the sale of the item had closed and that text was confirmation of the lowest price reached for it; any consumers that were buying it would already have phoned in to bid. Bid TV said presenters did not always use wording such as "only £XX", however when they did it was in the context of indicating the low price of a product, rather than meaning there were no other costs. They believed the additional costs were clear and that the ads were not misleading.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA acknowledged the ads included relatively small on-screen text that referred to the additional charges associated with making a purchase. While we noted Bid TV's argument that viewers would need to look for the phone number on screen, and would therefore be aware of the charges associated with the call, we also noted the presenters repeatedly stated the phone number. Nevertheless, we considered the overall impression of the presentations, in which more prominent on-screen text stated "everyone pays £XX" and the presenters emphasised the low prices of the items as they fell (for example, by stating, "You only pay the price we stop at", "… that's it, fiver" and "… for a pound, you can't get a kids' plastic sweetie ring for that can you"), but did not refer to the existence of additional charges associated with making a purchase, was that the items could be obtained for the prices prominently shown on-screen and verbally emphasised. We considered the additional costs, of £1.53 per call from a BT landline and £7.99 per item for postage and packaging in mainland Great Britain, were significant conditions that should have been given greater prominence in the ads. We also considered the on-screen text contradicted, rather than clarified, the impression that the items could be obtained for the prices emphasised verbally and on-screen. We therefore concluded that the ads were misleading.
The ads breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification) and 3.18 3.18 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product or service depicted in the advertisement. (Prices).
Action
The ads must not be broadcast again in their current form. We told Bid TV to ensure future ads did not imply items could be purchased without additional charges. We told them to ensure significant conditions were made sufficiently clear and that qualifications did not contradict the overall impression of an ad.
