ASA Adjudications

The Jewellery Channel Ltd
32 Queen Anne Street
London
W1G 8HD
Number of complaints: 1
Date:14 May 2008
Media:Television
Sector:Retail

Ad
A teleshopping ad on The Jewellery Channel (TJC) for a gold Madagascan Blue Sapphire and Diamond bracelet was shown in the format of a "reverse auction," where the price of an item dropped rather than increased and every customer then paid the final on-screen price. The auction price started at £16,983 plus UK postage and packing £5.95. The £16,983 price remained on-screen labelled "Start," while the auction price dropped to £1,199 to start the bidding. The auction price dropped at intervals to £989, £899, £879 and finished at £799.

The presenter described the bracelet as 11.37 carats in total with 11 carats of sapphire and 37 points of diamond. He said the bracelet comprised 25 sapphires, each 5 x 4mm, almost 12g of 18 ct white gold and was eight inches long.

Before two of the price drops, the presenter urged viewers to "run to your phones" and at one point - approximately two minutes into the auction when it had a further three minutes to run - he said "I'm going to give you 30 seconds to grab this deal."

A telephone number beginning 0844 appeared at the top of the screen throughout the ad alongside text that stated "calls charged at local rate."

Text scrolling across the bottom of the screen contained various pieces of information about the auction, ordering and payment processes, including the statement "The on screen start price does not imply a worth or value of the jewellery."
Issue
A viewer challenged whether the ad was misleading because:

1. he believed the £16,983 start price on screen throughout the auction suggested the jewellery was valued at that price; and

2. the 30-second time limit given approximately two minutes into a five-minute auction put unnecessary pressure on viewers to make a purchase.
BCAP TV Advertising Code: 5.2.2;5.1;5.2.1;5.3.1

Response
1. TJC said the "Start" price was not intended to suggest an actual value or worth figure for the item. They said their presenters made that point regularly on-air throughout the day and text that stated "The on screen start price does not imply a worth or value of the jewellery" scrolled across the bottom of the screen during the auction. They believed the "Start" figures were so high as to not be believable as valuation figures. They said the final price customers usually paid was 15-20 times lower than the "Start" figure, and that in this particular case the final price was £799 from a "Start" figure of £16,983.

2. TJC said their system allowed hundreds of bids to be placed per second and an auction ended when the quantity of items available reached zero. They said a viewer was at risk of losing the opportunity to buy an item at very short notice and every auction therefore had an inherent urgency. They acknowledged that some viewers would feel under unnecessary pressure to make a purchase because of that situation, but did not consider that that in itself was a breach of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code.

TJC said they would sometimes bring an auction to an end themselves if no viewers had bid for an item. They said they would give a countdown in those circumstances and the auction would normally remain open for the duration of the countdown. They said a countdown did not diminish or enhance the urgency to purchase because they did not guarantee that an auction would always remain open for the duration of the countdown. They said if callers were already on the line they could hold the auction open to enable them to place a bid, and had done so in the case of the auction complained of.

They recognised the presenter had suggested there was to be a 30-second countdown. They said the intention, however, was to warn viewers that the auction was about to end rather than to signal a strict, timed countdown. TJC said they had instructed their presenters not to give specific, timed countdowns unless there was a visible on-screen clock. Where there was no clock, they allowed their presenters to countdown to end an auction but not to suggest that the countdown was in seconds. They believed that was an acceptable indication that an auction was about to end.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that TJC had not supplied evidence that demonstrated that the start price shown for the item was comparable to high street prices or reflected an independent valuation, but that they believed the figure was so obviously excessive that it would not be understood as a valuation. We also noted that text that stated "The on screen start price does not imply a worth or value of the jewellery" scrolled across the bottom of the screen during the auction and their assertion that presenters repeated that information on-air regularly throughout the day. We also recognised TJC was entitled to set a starting price for their reverse auctions. We noted, however, that the warning in on-screen text was a very short section of a very large amount of text that contained various different pieces of information, not all of which was likely to be seen and understood by viewers. We considered it was insufficient for presenters to repeat the warning at other times of the day away from the individual auctions and the times at which the "Start" price was on screen. We considered the continued appearance on screen of the "Start" price was likely to suggest to viewers that that was the normal or expected price for the item.

On this point the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2 (Implications) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing).

2. Upheld
We noted TJC's explanation of the situations in which they showed a formal, on-screen clock and those in which they used a less strict, informal countdown. However, we considered the presenter's statement "I'm going to give you 30 seconds to grab this deal" clearly suggested to viewers that the auction had another 30 seconds only to run. Because that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was putting unnecessary pressure on viewers to make a purchase.

On this point the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications).
Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

back | top