Ad description
A TV ad for an online bookmaker began with on-screen text and a voice-over that said, "IS YOUR BOOKIE GIVING YOU VALUE?" The voice-over continued, "On all Channel 4 live races in September, Betfair were better priced than William Hill 30 minutes before the start of each race on 506 of the 640 runners. Better than Paddy Power on 549, and better than Betfred on 543. Now that's value. Before you bet today, check the prices on Betfair."
Text that appeared at the bottom of the screen throughout the ad stated "Exchange prices only. 5% commission has been deducted from Betfair prices. Other charges may apply. For verification see betchecker.betfair.com".
Issue
A viewer challenged whether the claim that Betfair was better priced 30 minutes before the start of each race than William Hill, Paddy Power and Betfred was misleading, because he understood that those three bookmakers all offered a "Best Odds Guarantee", which meant their customers would receive whichever was better; the price when they placed their bet or the Starting Price.
Response
Betfair said "Best Odds Guarantees" (BOGs) were not offered to all customers; often only new or predominantly losing customers would find that BOGs were honoured by the bookmaker who claimed to offer that promotion. They provided examples from online articles and blogs to illustrate that point. They also provided extracts from the terms and conditions of the other bookmakers named in the ads which they said showed the restrictions and limitations of their BOGs. They said to ensure they made a verifiable comparison on a like-for-like basis they could not take into account promotional offers from the other bookmakers which might not be available to all customers (nor available on corresponding terms).
They said the comparison in the ad was of the best price that all customers would definitely be offered by them and the three other bookmakers online, 30 minutes before the start of each race, and was therefore an objective comparison of identical products. They said there were no better prices available to customers of any of the other bookmakers at the time the prices were captured and that the fairest and most transparent basis for comparison was to take the published price offered 30 minutes before the start of each race to every customer of the named bookmakers.
They said they could not have produced a comparison with identifiable competitors based on the Starting Price or even the prices 10 or 15 minutes before the races started, because around 10–15 minutes before the start of all horse races all bookmakers' prices (other than Betfair's) converged and prices moved in unison, if they moved at all. They therefore chose 30 minutes before the races started as the appropriate time to take the price capture because there was still liquidity in racing markets at that time, and volumes of betting increased as the start of races approached. One hour was deemed to be too long before the race started for that reason. They said they held price information which showed that, the closer to the start of a race, the more favourable the comparison between their prices and those of their competitors became (notwithstanding the fact that, from 15 minutes before until the start of a race, there was no way of identifying different prices amongst their competitors).
Clearcast said the mechanics underpinning the claim had been agreed some time ago and had been used by Betfair in a number of different ads since that time. They were satisfied that the comparison being made was fair and meaningful and they pointed out that the ad did not make an absolute "better prices" claim. They said the nature of the comparison was clear and unambiguous and that it allowed viewers to satisfy themselves as to whether Betfair would offer them a better price than the named competitors on whatever event they wanted to bet on.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that the ad encouraged viewers to make their own comparisons between Betfair and the other named bookmakers before placing bets in future; by presenting the results of the comparisons they had carried out which showed that they were generally better priced than their competitors. We considered viewers would expect to have been paid by each of the bookmakers at the prices used in the comparison, had they bet online on the relevant races 30 minutes before each began.
We noted that the ad clearly stated the comparison was made 30 minutes before each race began and that the website to which viewers were directed provided verification of the data used in the comparisons, which took Betfair's 5% commission charge into account. The prices used were those that would definitely be received by customers placing their bets online with each bookmaker 30 minutes before the start of the race. However, although different restrictions applied to the other bookmakers' BOGs (for example, in relation to telephone betting), each of the other bookmakers would have paid out at higher odds if the Starting Price was better than the price that a customer took online, 30 minutes before the start of the races included in the comparison. We understood that in practice some consumers had their BOG entitlement withdrawn and that some of the bookmakers explicitly reserved their right to withdraw it in their terms and conditions. However, BOGs only appeared to be restricted by the other bookmakers on an ad hoc basis for individual customers and we therefore considered that the comparison should take BOGs into account.
The ad and the website that viewers were directed to made clear what prices the comparisons were based upon, but those prices were of limited relevance in relation to the other bookmakers, which could pay out at better odds than those used in the comparison. We therefore considered that the ad was likely to mislead viewers regarding the relative value of betting with Betfair.
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),
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification),
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Exaggeration) and
3.33
3.33
Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service.
and
3.35
3.35
Advertisements must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products or services, which may include price.
(Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Betfair to ensure that their comparisons did not mislead consumers regarding the relative value of betting with them in future.
