A kiss on the hand may be quite continental… but diamonds are a girl’s best friend. And gold, platinum, rubies, sapphires...
In ancient times, jewellery was made from shells, bones and stones, and could be anything from a good luck charm to a status symbol. The oldest piece of jewellery ever found was in Morocco – 150,000 years old and made of perforated snail shells. And the most expensive piece of jewellery ever sold at auction was a 59.60 carat pink diamond which sold in Hong Kong in 2017 for $71.2 million. I’ll have two!
What can we gleam from this? Essentially, jewellery ain’t going nowhere. Let’s have a look at some ASA rulings about jewellery that are worth their weight in gold.
Live and die by the sword (and significant conditions)
Our first case concerns a paid‑for Facebook ad for Ashlen, an online jewellery and clothing brand, which claimed that its “sword hair pin collection” (hair pins in the shape of swords) was “closing” and promoted a “last chance” 60% discount. The ASA upheld the complaint, because the collection remained available for purchase for at least 12 months after the ad first appeared, despite the claims that the collection was closing. The ASA found that the “closing” claim created a false sense of urgency and was misleading. They also found that the absence of a closing date was further likely to mislead, and, as Ashlen had not demonstrated that the absence of a closing date did not disadvantage consumers, this point was also upheld.
Stating that a collection or brand is closing and is now on promotion is a common way to drive sales – there’s nothing wrong with this technique… as long as it’s true (and you provide all significant conditions, of course!).
When the sparkle masks the harm
Our next case features a paid‑for advert shown on The Guardian app for a jewellery brand which featured the depiction of an unhealthily thin model. The ad featured a model wearing three necklaces and leaning forward with her chin resting on her hand. Although the advertiser argued that the model was naturally slim and that her pose was chosen to better display the necklaces, the ASA considered that the model’s very slender arms, prominent clavicles and visible upper ribs created an impression that she was underweight, an effect accentuated by her posture. The ASA concluded that the image breached the CAP Code because it portrayed an unhealthily thin model and was therefore socially irresponsible.
Rule 1.3 states “Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society”, and that includes all ads for all products or services. You can read more about social responsibility and body image in our guidance here.
Pearl palaver
Our last case deals with a teleshopping segment promoting £369 Tahitian pearl earrings, where the ASA found that the presenters made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the earrings’ market value and resale price, variously suggesting they were worth between £1,198 and £8,999, despite the company, Gemporia, failing to provide evidence that similar products had sold at those levels or that the advertised earrings were of a quality grade justifying those valuations. The ASA also found a price comparison with a competitor’s £975 pearl earrings to be misleading, because the products were not substantially equivalent.
There are lots of rules about pricing, RRPs and competitor comparisons – you can read about the RRPs here and comparisons here.
So that’s it for our three gem-azing rulings. And if you need any help with your advertising, jewelled, studded, or otherwise, please feel free to contact our sparkling Copy Advice team.
More on
-
Keep up to date
Sign up to our rulings, newsletters and emargoed access for Press. Subscribe now.
