Ad description
A teleshopping ad broadcast on 25 August on the Jewellery Channel depicted a reverse auction for a diamond ring. The auction began at 6.11 pm. Text on-screen stated "ILIANA 18K W Gold IGI Certified Diamonds (SI/H) Ring 1.000 Ct ... Size O, Size P, Size Q Sold Out. BUY NOW £10493.99. P&P £4.95/day ... To bid dial and press #...BIG FIVE DAY". The presenter stated, "We have two available in size O ... and one available in size P. We did have a size Q, but someone's snagged it online ... Right, we're going to go low on this one and you've already been told how low which is fantastic to know isn't it. So shall we take a plunge? Let's take a plunge from £10,493.99; we're nowhere near that of course ... right the way down to just £999.99." The on-screen text then stated "FINAL PRICE BUY NOW £999.99". The presenter continued, "How much is this on our website? £1,499 this is on our website right now ..."
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the starting price of £10,493.99 was misleading and exaggerated the value of the ring.
Response
The Jewellery Channel Ltd said the first price shown on the screen (£10,493.99) was an auction starting price and the presentation did not attribute any significance to this figure or make a reference to worth or value; it was a starting point from which they dropped to their first auction price. They stated that during the presentation the presenter made it very clear that this was not a figure that the product was to be sold at and the first price drop was to £999.99 which was the start of the falling auction. They pointed out that the presenter stated that the product was currently on sale on their website at £1,499 and felt that viewers could therefore see the price at which they had previously been advertising the product.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that the Jewellery Channel 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 the Jewellery Channel was entitled to set a starting price for its reverse auctions providing they did not mislead.
We noted that the presenter indicated that the ring was already available for purchase online, but did not specify the online price, which we understood to be £1,499. We also noted that the presenter stated, "Right, we're going to go low on this one and you've already been told how low which is fantastic to know isn't it. So shall we take a plunge? Let's take a plunge from £10,493.99; we're nowhere near that of course." We acknowledged that some viewers might understand from that information that the starting price was a nominal starting point and did not represent a genuine valuation or retail price for the product. However, in the absence of further clarification, we considered that most viewers would nonetheless infer that the listed price of £10,493.99 represented a genuine valuation of the ring and that the final reduced price of £999.99 was therefore a genuine saving on the starting price.
Because we had not seen evidence that the starting price for the product was a genuine value or retail price, and because we did not consider that it was sufficiently clear that "£10,493.99" was a nominal starting price, we concluded that the presentation misleadingly exaggerated its value.
Investigated under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.4
3.4
Standards set to secure the standards objectives [specified in para 3(e) above] shall in particular contain provision designed to secure that religious programmes do not involve:
a) any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of the audience for such a programme; or
b) any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination."
Section
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.
6).
(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
3.18
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 be broadcast again in its current form. We told the advertisers to make clear the starting price was a notional price or to ensure that they did not imply the starting price was a genuine valuation unless they held evidence that was the case.
