Home > TV > Broadcast Bulletins > Archive Advertising Complaints Bulletins > Issue number A03 > Upheld cases

Harmful - Slots of Fun
Southampton Television (RSL)

Issue

A viewer of Southampton Television - a restricted service licensee - complained that she had seen an advertisement for an amusement arcade around children's programmes.

Apart from limited exceptions such as football pools, bingo and certain lotteries, advertising for betting and gaming is prohibited on commercial television.

Response

Southampton Television apologised for scheduling the advertising around children's programmes, but considered that it was acceptable to promote amusement arcades as long as advertisements did not emphasise the betting and gaming aspect of their business.

Decision

The advertisement referred to 'high percentage payouts,' urged prospective players to 'try your luck and have a great time' and ended with the sight and sound of a gambling machine paying out a large win. These are all elements promoting a betting and gaming service. Such a service was prohibited from advertising on television at any time of day, not just around children's programmes.

Complaint upheld. Breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 3.1(c), which prohibits television advertising for betting and gaming.

Misleading - Goldshield Vitality
Metalean

Issue

A viewer complained about an advertisement broadcast on Goldshield Vitality (now no longer transmitting) for a dietary supplement called Metalean Green Tea Extract. The product was designed to assist weight loss. The advertising referred to a study which had been carried out on another proprietary green tea extract, not Metalean. The viewer complained it was therefore misleading to attribute the test results and claims about weight loss to Metalean.

Response

The broadcaster provided a copy of the study, which made it clear that another green tea extract, not Metalean, had been used. However, it felt that the advertisement made it clear that the claims referred to green tea extract in general rather than Metalean and was therefore not misleading.

The study concluded that - oral administration of the green tea extract "has the potential to influence body weight and body composition via changes in energy expenditure and substrate utilisation."

Goldshield Vitality judge that the green tea extract in Metalean has been "standardised to the same nutrient market compounds, caffeine and epigallocatechin gallate", as the proprietary green tea extract used in the study and in their view, the same claims could be made.

Decision

Ofcom referred the substantiation to the Medical Advisory Panel (MAP) for advice. It noted that the study did not support the claim that green tea extract increased weight loss, only that it had the potential to influence it.

MAP advised Ofcom that the green tea extract used in Metalean was unlikely to differ significantly in its caffeine and epigallocatechin gallate content from that used in the published study. However, there was no evidence to support the claim that green tea extract affects the rate of weight loss and as such, claims attributing increased weight loss to green tea extract should not be made.

We concluded that the advertising did not make it sufficiently clear that the test results referred to in the advertising were for generic green tea extract and not the advertised product. The overall impression was that the benefits had been established by virtue of the study for Metalean and that viewers could therefore be misled.

We accepted that Metalean had been advertised as part of a weight loss regime which included advice on dieting and exercise. However, based on advice from MAP that claims about increased weight loss were not supported, it judged that they were capable of misleading and should not be made.

Complaint upheld. Breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1, (Misleading advertising) 8.4.2 (Requirement for medical advice).

Misleading - Boots Triple Points
J Walter Thompson Group Ltd

Issue

A viewer saw an advertisement on a Wednesday for the Boots Triple Points Offer, which said 'offer ends on Sunday'. After making a purchase at a Boots store on the Wednesday he was told that the offer only ran from Thursday to Sunday. The viewer complained that the advertisement did not make this limitation clear.

Response

The agency explained that the advertisement should have gone on air in two blocks in separate weeks from 8pm on Wednesday to noon on Saturday. However, the media booker did not clarify the dates correctly and instead booked the advertisement to run as one block from Wednesday for a ten day period. Therefore, the advertisement was broadcast during a period when the offer was not running in store. The agency apologised for the mistake.

Decision

We welcomed the agency's apology and acknowledged that the mistake had occurred through human error. Unfortunately because of the mistake the advertisement was misleading.

Complaint upheld. Breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.2.3 (Qualifications).

Separation of advertisements and programmes - Your Guide To A Beautiful Body
Life TV

Issue

A viewer saw a broadcast entitled 'Your Guide To A Beautiful Body' that looked like a programme but appeared to contain a number of advertisements for beauty products and services.

Rule 2.1.1 says: "There must be a clear distinction between programmes and advertising"

Response

Life TV explained that it considered the broadcast to be a teleshopping advertisement and had broadcast it in one of their designated teleshopping windows.

Decision

The broadcast did not qualify as teleshopping because it did not contain any offers for sale. The Rules on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising (RASA) Rule 8.1 (a) defines teleshopping as follows:

"Teleshopping (also known as home shopping, advertorials, infomercials, etc.) is a form of advertising involving the direct offers to the public with a view to the supply of goods or services, including immovable property, or rights and obligations, in return for payment"

The broadcast was also not clearly identified as advertising as is required by Code Rule 2.1.1

Also the RASA Rule 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 state that:

7.1.1 Any advertisement that lasts longer than one minute should be particularly carefully assessed to ensure that there is no risk of confusion with programme material.

7.1.2 Except where the style makes it fully apparent that it is an advertisement, any advertisement that lasts longer than one minute must be flagged as such (e.g. by superimposed text) at the beginning, and at the end (if its character is not clearly established at the end).

This broadcast was not identified as advertising as required.

Complaint upheld. Breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 2.1.1 and RASA 7.1.1, 7.1.2 and 8.1 (a).

Back to top