Ad description
A falling price auction presentation on Price-Drop TV advertised a Pendule Automatic Movement Skeleton Yellow Gold Plated Watch. The price on screen was given as £220 at the start of the presentation and then reduced to £110. The presenter stated, "If I halve this. you're going to be getting it for £55, a quarter of where we started. That means 75 per cent of the price we started with will have been taken away, will have been taken away - 75 per cent! £55 and it's yours … Dial right now … That is awesome! …One of the most brilliant buys for a gorgeous timepiece. … What if I said £51.99?...] All for less than £60 … I ask go to any jewellers and see if you can find a timepiece of this quality for around £60 … I'm taking it less than £50" The final price was shown on screen as £49.99.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad, and in particular the reference to the percentage saving on the starting price, misleadingly exaggerated the value of the product.
Response
sit-up Ltd t/a Price-Drop TV (sit-up) said the starting price of £220 was taken from an average high street price for that type of watch and that they held the evidence to support this. They explained that their TV business model involved 'dynamic pricing' which meant that viewers who purchased a product during a presentation would pay the final selling price. They said they also operated a website, but that this was separate and worked on a fixed price business model, which meant that prices varied between their TV and website operations. Sit-up said they understood that when making any statements relating to value these needed to be adequately explained and supported by evidence. They said that it had now come to their attention that the same watch was being sold on their website at a price lower than £220 and that an error in their checking process meant this had not been picked up prior to the presentation.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that Price-Drop TV worked on a reverse auction model, which meant the price started at its highest point and then reduced during the presentation, with all purchasers paying the final price for the product. We acknowledged that sit-up was entitled to set a starting price for its reverse auctions providing they did not mislead. However, we considered that the presenter's references back to the starting price and statements that the reduced price was a percentage saving on the starting price implied that the starting price was a genuine valuation or retail price for the product. We noted the watch was available for less than the starting price of £220 on the sit-up website. Because we had not seen evidence that the starting price for the product was a genuine value or retail price we concluded the ad, and in particular the references to the percentage saving on the starting price, misleadingly exaggerated its value.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising) 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 ad must not appear again in its current form. We told sit-up to ensure that they did not imply the starting price was a genuine valuation unless they held evidence this was the case.
