Ad description
A TV ad for BetVictor seen in October 2016 featured two men at a horse race where one asked the other, “Why would I ever use this lengthen the odds thing?” The other man responded, “Well I could tell ya but better a professor of probability explains it for me.” The ad then showed another smartly-dressed man in what appeared to be a classroom, who stated, “Probability and form suggest that the favourite will win and because it’s so likely to happen the odds aren’t very exciting. But with BetVictor I can predict how many lengths it’s going to win by and increase the odds and the excitement.” Whilst saying this, the academic character was shown using the app. The ad ended with the on-screen text “Lengthen the odds. Enhance your winnings”.
Issue
One complainant challenged whether the claim “Probability and form suggest that the favourite will win and because it’s so likely to happen” was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
BetVictor Ltd stated that the ad suggested that odds relating to a favourite horse were always shorter than for all other competitors, which meant the odds were not “very exciting”. The ad promoted their “Lengthen the Odds” app and how it increased odds for the customer if they used it when picking a favourite horse.
BetVictor believed that the claim “Probability and form suggest that the favourite will win and because it’s so likely to happen the odds aren’t very exciting” did not mislead viewers into placing a bet on a favourite horse because it would win. They considered that the claim suggested rather than confirmed that a favourite horse was likely to win. This was based on form results and other factors that made a horse the favourite by bookmakers and was demonstrated by its short odds, which made it a likely winner over and above the other horses in the race. They believed that the ad was not stating a sure probability or probability percentages that required substantiation, but more the fact that the favourite horse was recognised across the industry as the likely winner, hence why it had shorter odds.
BetVictor further stated that the ad did not exaggerate the capability of their “Lengthen the Odds” app. They believed the ad in no way suggested that by using it, consumers had a greater chance of placing a winning bet.
Clearcast believed that the particular piece of script from the ad which was being challenged could not be regarded as a claim on its own, but rather along with the information that followed it provided an explanation of how odds worked and set up the ad’s actual claim regarding how the “Lengthen the Odds” app could make betting on a favourite horse more appealing and referred to the example shown in the ad. They stated that if a horse was a heavy favourite for a race, with bookmakers confident it would win and many bettors backing it, then the odds offered on that horse would be very short as shown in the ad’s graphics, where “Minding” was 4/7 on to win. They stated that many consumers could be put off from betting on this race because of those odds. On the one hand, betting on “Minding” offered a chance of only a small return whilst on the other, betting on one of the other horses might feel like a pointless bet because expert opinion (reflected in the bookmakers’ odds) seemed so confident that “Minding” would win.
Clearcast explained that if a consumer was confident that the bookmakers were right and that “Minding” would win, but didn’t want to place a bet at such short odds because the potential winnings were small, they could make the bet more specific and complex. This could be done with the “Lengthen the Odds” feature by specifying not just which horse would win but also by how many lengths it would win by. Because there was a much smaller chance of this being correct, the odds would then become correspondingly longer, and the possible rewards larger.
Clearcast believed that if the challenged piece of script was to be regarded as a claim, it did not mislead viewers. They stated that a favourite racing horse was in that position because bookmakers believed that it was likely to win and so did not want to be too exposed to losses and that consumers were backing it. The opinions of bookmakers and customers were presented by probability and form as the academic character pointed out. They believed that the ad did not claim in any way that the favourite horse would always win, but rather that it was likely to do so.
Referring to the ad’s horse race example, Clearcast acknowledged that “Minding” was not certain to win as there was always going to be an element of chance in gambling. The odds quoted, however, showed that in the opinion of the bookmakers (influenced by both their own knowledge and by the behaviour of their customers), a “Minding victory” was (as per the line delivered by the academic character in the ad) “Likely to happen”.
Clearcast stated that there would often be horse races without an overwhelming favourite. In such circumstances consumers might decide that the “Lengthen the Odds” app would not interest them, because their potential bets were interesting enough as there were several horses that could be worth backing, and that they had no desire to make the odds longer than they already were. Clearcast believed that the ad implied this scenario when the first male character stated, “Why would I ever use this ‘Lengthen the Odds’ thing?”. This they thought clearly indicated that he was content to proceed in placing bets without using the “Lengthen the Odds” app.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA understood that the complainant believed that the script’s text, “Probability and form suggest that the favourite will win and because it’s so likely to happen the odds aren’t very exciting” implied that the favourite horse in any given race would always win.
We considered that viewers would understand that the text set the context for the ad’s broader claim, that the “Lengthen the Odds” app could be used by consumers to enhance short odds on a favourite horse by guessing how many lengths it would win by. Furthermore, we considered that viewers would interpret the specific text to mean that shorter odds offered on a horse indicated that it was the bookmakers and consumers favourite to likely win the race, rather than it being the definite winner.
Therefore, because the ad did not imply that a favourite horse would always win a race we concluded that it was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
