Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both were Upheld.
Ad description
A press ad, for Isiris Racing Services, a betting tipster, included the claims "… with a strike-rate in the region of 80% (currently 90% with 18 out of our last 20 bets all successful)". Large red text below stated "90% STRIKE-RATE". Further text included "… members may request a full list of every bet over the past 7 years, showing well over £210,000 profit per member".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "90% STRIKE-RATE" was misleading, because he believed many of the bets were each-way or split stake bets which had returned less money than was staked; and
2. the claim "… well over £210,000 profit per member" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Isiris Racing Services (Isiris) said if a bet was advised to finish in the first three (each-way) and it finished in the first three, then it was successful because it had done what was predicted. They said the ad included details of profit and strike rates and the reader could therefore easily see the extent to which one correlated with another, which in this case was a 90% strike rate correlated with £4,700 profit. They pointed out that the ad also included a race-by-race breakdown, including details of a loser. Isiris said the ad was accurate and not misleading.
2. Isiris submitted a spreadsheet, which they said demonstrated that the £210,000 profit claim was correct. They said the results covered almost the previous eight years, from November 2004. However, they did not operate for a year between 2009 and 2010 and it was therefore correct to say the profit figure was achieved from the results of their past seven years. They said there were several thousand results to "prove" however they could also submit the relevant e-mails, which had been lodged with the Racing Post in advance of the relevant events, if necessary.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad, which appeared on 25 September 2012, included details of nine bets, one of which had returned "£0 profit". We noted it also included the claim "… with a strike-rate in the region of 80% (currently 90% with 18 out of our last 20 bets all successful)" and therefore considered the claim "90% STRIKE-RATE" would be understood to relate to Isiris's previous 20 tips, including the nine that were listed in the ad. We also considered the ad would be interpreted as suggesting 90% of those tips had returned a profit. We noted Isiris's argument that the ad included a profit claim that clearly correlated to the strike-rate claim but we considered the text "Also, £4714 profit on all bets advised during August!*" would be understood as relating only to August and that any correlation to the claimed "90% STRIKE-RATE" for the previous 20 tips, including the nine the ad stated had taken place since the end of August, was therefore not clear.
We noted the nine bets listed included references such as "EW" and "each way bet" but that the ad stated that all but one of those bets had returned a profit and did not include details of any each-way or split stake bets that had returned less than the amount staked. We considered the ad did not make sufficiently clear, for example by including prominent qualification next to the strike-rate claim itself, that the claimed strike-rate included bets that could return less than was staked. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
We considered readers of the Racing Post, a publication for sports and betting enthusiasts, were likely to interpret the claim as suggesting that Isiris had provided tips that had potential for a cumulative profit of £210,000 for members who had followed every tip for the previous seven years continuously. We noted the spreadsheet submitted by Isiris, which it appeared related to each tip provided since 5 November 2004. We noted the column headed "CumP/L", which we understood to relate to cumulative profit and loss, included text that appeared to relate to theoretical accumulated profits of over £210,000 in the days immediately preceding the ad's publication. While we acknowledged Isiris's explanation that they had not operated for a year during the period the data referred to, we considered the claim would be understood to refer to the past seven years, therefore dating back to September 2005, rather than to the total time in which Isiris had operated over the previous eight years. However, whereas the claim referred to the "past 7 years", we understood the cumulative total recorded against those dates in September 2012 included theoretical profits accumulated between November 2004 and September 2005, which was more than seven years previously, as well as a gap of one year during which no tips were provided.
We acknowledged the ad included small print linked to the claims "= £4451 profit*" and "Also, £4714 profit on all bets advised during August!*", which stated "… Total bank required for above profits = £1000. Total turnover for August profit = £11,300. Total turnover for 9 bets = £5100" but that no similar text was included to make clear the total bank needed to place stakes on the relevant forecasts to achieve "… well over £210,000 profit". While we considered the spreadsheet indicated that Isiris had recorded the tips listed since November 2004, we were concerned that it did not demonstrate that their members who had followed every tip "over the past 7 years" had made the profit claimed. We were also concerned that we had not seen evidence that the forecasts were lodged with an independent third party before the relevant events took place. We considered the claim had not been substantiated and that the ad was therefore misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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), 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Isiris to ensure future ads made sufficiently clear if strike-rate claims included bets that could return less money than was staked. We also told them to ensure they were in a position to substantiate their profit claims in future.
