Ad description
A press ad in the Racing Post, was headlined "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?". Below, the ad showed four boxes, each contained a big William Hill-branded football shirt and three smaller shirts branded with the names of other bookmakers. Each shirt had a number representing the number of matches in which that company had offered the best price. The first box was titled "BEST PRICE PREMIER LEAGUE" and text in the shirts stated "WILLIAM HILL 102; CORAL 27; BET365 0; BETFAIR 0". The other boxes gave statistics from other leagues in the same way. Large text below stated "You know where to come williamhill.com/bestprices". Small print at the bottom of the ad stated "Source txodds.com, online prices include 153 Premier League, 241 Championship, 239 League 1 and 242 League 2 games so far this season. Price comparison data compiled from the last odds available across the industry on match day. Prices correct as of 11th December 2012. ... See williamhill.com/bestprices for details. William Hill rules apply".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?" and the comparisons between the bookmakers in the ad were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
WHG Trading & WHG (International) Ltd (William Hill) said they were aware that the complainant had interpreted the ad to mean that the ad was offering comparisons just between the named bookmakers. They said this was not the case and that the numbers in the shirts had been drawn from a wider comparison between seven bookmakers. This data, which was referenced in the ad, was provided by a third-party source (TXOdds) who collated data concerning other operators within the industry and who were completely independent of William Hill. The ad carried, in large font, a clear reference to the website url which displayed this data and at which was given clear information as to how the comparison was created and which companies were involved. Further links within the web page took the reader to the raw data being used to compile that information.
William Hill said that published data was missing seven matches, for which they apologised, and explained that they had reviewed that omission with the data provider. They provided a revised table including those matches and argued that William Hill continued to stand out as best prices in the various categories which were referenced in the ad. In relation to the bookmakers that were referenced, they had taken all the large-scale operators from within the industry in the UK market, and certainly those which would be considered in the wider scale as direct competitors to William Hill. They argued that, due to the size of the industry they operated in, there would always be other gambling companies both on and offline who would offer gambling opportunities. It would be both unreasonable and impossible to include all of those in a comparison, considering the sheer volume of other operators and markets and also their accessibility by the consumer. As such they had taken the major operators from within the industry based on market share and net gambling revenue. They provided market share data in support of that which they said showed that those bookmakers that they had referenced were the largest within the UK while the ones that had been omitted were ultimately small scale operators which represented a small section of the gambling industry.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the complainant had interpreted the ad to mean that William Hill had carried out a comparison between only those bookmakers referenced in the ad. However, we considered that the claim "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?" in the context of the ad would be interpreted by most readers to mean that William Hill had conducted a whole-market comparison of the prices offered in each league and had offered the best price on the most occasions. We considered that the presence of the named bookmakers on the shirts in each league would be interpreted as those who had ranked after William Hill in that comparison.
We noted that both interpretations were incorrect and rather, William Hill had conducted a comparison between seven bookmakers only and not the whole market or just the named bookmakers. We also noted that the raw data was missing seven matches from the season. Although William Hill had argued that the comparison included all the top bookmakers, we noted that the comparison omitted SkyBet despite it ranking above other bookmakers that had been included, in terms of net gaming revenue.
We therefore considered the data did not show that William Hill had offered the best prices on the favourites during the season when compared with the whole market and concluded that the ad was misleading
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer 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 the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are 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) and
3.33
3.33
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.
(Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told William Hill to make sure they held appropriate substantiation before making whole-market comparisons and to ensure that the nature of the comparisons was clear in their ads.
