Home > TV > Broadcast Bulletins > Archive Advertising Complaints Bulletins > Issue number A02 > Upheld Cases

Misleading - Sasaki Mattresses
Chinese Channel

Issue

The Chinese Channel broadcast an advertisement for the Sasaki mattress. The commercial contained a testimonial from a customer who said that she believed that the mattress had improved her children's immune system. A viewer questioned this statement.

Response

Ofcom asked the Chinese Channel to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that the mattress could improve people's immune system. The broadcaster was unable to provide the evidence.

Decision

Without evidence to substantiate such a claim the advertisement was misleading. Any testimonial in an advertisement which could be interpreted as a factual claim must be substantiated.

Complaint upheld. The advertisement for the Sasaki Mattress was in breach of Rule 5.4.4. of the Advertising Standards Code (Testimonials).

Misleading - Currys Digital Receiver
M&C Saatchi

Issue

41 viewers complained about a Currys advertisement, broadcast in November 2003, for a Ferguson digital receiver. The advertisement claimed that the product 'is now half price'. The price quoted was £39.99. Accompanying text said 'Subject to coverage'. The complainants who visited their Currys store to buy the receiver found that the store had already sold out. They objected to Currys continuing to advertise the product when it appeared to them that the offer was no longer available. Some complainants had been told by their store this special offer stock was limited to ten per shop.

Response

DSG Retail Limited (who trade as both Currys and Dixons) said that in the weeks before the advertisement was broadcast it had been selling between 5,000-6,000 receivers per week. The company decided to make 27,000 receivers available to meet the expected demand created by the advertisement. 25,000 were allocated to Currys and 2,000 to Dixons. This was believed, when the offer was created, to be an over-estimate of likely sales for the campaign. The advertisement commenced on the Thursday and by the Monday morning Currys marketing team realised that weekend sales had vastly exceeded expectations. They said that they tried to cancel the advertisements at the first available opportunity. However, the advertisements were not stopped until after Wednesday 12 November 2003.

Because DSG were aware that some customers had been disappointed, they made a further 6,000 receivers available at the advertised price in order to try and satisfy customer demand. These extra units could have given rise to stores claiming to have been allocated only ten units of stock. In fact the 25,000 units which were originally made available to the Currys chain represent approximately 70 units per store.

Currys said that it regretted that 41 customers had cause for complaint but that this small number should be taken in the context of the 33,000 units it had sold.

Decision

The advertiser had clearly taken steps to remedy the shortfall once it had become apparent, including removing the advertisement from air. However, despite these efforts the advertising was misleading when it continued to be broadcast more than two days after stocks had clearly run out.

Complaints upheld. Breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1 (Misleading Advertising)

Misleading - Ab Force Belt
Ukams

Issue

An advertisement for the Ab Force Belt, an electro-muscle stimulation (EMS) device intended to produce abdominal muscle contractions offered two belts for the price of one. (£20 plus £4.99 p&p)

A viewer complained that the product he received was a different shape and considerably smaller than the one advertised.

Ofcom was also concerned that the advertisement implied that the Ab Force Belt was effective for toning or exercising muscles in some way as it likened the product to other EMS devices, which are commonly advertised for their toning and exercising benefits. We also queried whether the belt had ever been sold individually for £20 as implied in its two-for-one offer.

Response

The advertiser, Telebrands, argued that because the advertisement showed two different shapes of Ab Force Belts, viewers would not be surprised to receive belts that were slightly different in appearance to the ones advertised. It added that the belts performed the same functions regardless of their shape or size.

The advertiser argued that the advertisement did not claim to be effective for exercising and toning muscles. It said the product was solely advertised as an effective massage device with differing intensity levels. Even so, it arranged for an evaluation of the electrical output of the product by an engineering and scientific consulting firm. The results were passed to an expert for evaluation. The expert compared these electrical results to that of another EMS product, the Slendertone Flex, which was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make claims about toning, strengthening and firming abdominal muscles. The expert's advice was that as both devices produced similar electrical values, one could expect similar responses in the muscles being activated and hence in terms of improvement in muscle tone and strength.

The advertiser did not provide evidence to demonstrate that a single Ab Force Belt had been available previously for £20.

Decision

Viewers are entitled to receive the product advertised. We did not accept that merely showing multiple appearances of a product in an advertisement was sufficient to explain why the product received varied from that advertised and why it might be considerably smaller in real life. The advertisement had therefore given a misleading impression of the product.

The comparison of results of the purely electrical output from both devices was not enough to substantiate the implied claims that the Ab Force belt could tone or exercise muscles.

The advertiser was unable to prove that the belt had ever been previously sold at £20, so this was a claim that could not be made.

Ofcom requires that the advertising not be shown again in its current form.

Complaint upheld. Breach of Advertising Standards Code Rules 5.1 (Misleading Advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.3.1 (Accurate Pricing).

Back to top