These reports are case summaries of complaints which appeared to raise issues of substance in relation to the interpretation of the ITC Advertising Standards Code. Summary statistics of non-substantive complaints can be found in the full reports which are obtainable from the ITC.
Complaint from: Staff monitoring
Best Direct advertised a pancake making set called Pancake Wizard.
While investigating a complaint about a separate issue, the ITC noticed an inconsistency in the way in which the offer was described, which it felt was likely to mislead viewers.
The main part of the presentation listed the contents of the set as a cooking pan, a device for dispensing pancake mixture called Batter Express and four moulds for shaping pancakes. It then went on to say that as a special offer customers would be sent a second pancake pan free of charge.
At the end of the presentation, a still shot appeared containing details of how to order. A voiceover referred to the special offer to receive "a second Pancake Wizard set free of charge".
Best Direct confirmed that the second Pancake Wizard set comprised the pancake pan only. It did not include the Batter Express device or the moulds. The BACC had approved the advertisement for transmission and both it and Best Direct considered that the nature of the offer was clear from the main part of the presentation.
The ITC disagreed, as it considered the way in which the offer was described the second time was contradictory and likely to leave viewers with the impression that they would be receiving more than the offer actually consisted of. It required that the advertisement should not appear again in that form.
Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.1.