Home > TV > Broadcast Bulletins > Archive Advertising Complaints Bulletins >  Issue number A04 > Breach of relevant Code

Misleading - Courts
RPM3 Advertising

Issue

A viewer saw an advertisement for the Courts sale, which contained a picture of a two and three seat brown leather sofa suite available at £795. The viewer went to the store to buy a suite but found that the suite in the advertised colour was more expensive than the advertised price.

Response

Courts said that the sofas in the advertisement were available in three different grades of leather. The price promoted in the advertisement was for grade ten leather. The photograph had been of a suite in superior grade 20 leather.

It explained that normally (but not in this case) the different grades look exactly the same. Therefore, on television, or in a newspaper advertisement, it was impossible to tell the difference between the alternative grades provided that the basic colour was the same. The photographs for this advertisement had been taken in the belief that the grade 20 leather was the same basic colour. Courts apologised for the mistake and agreed to amend the advertisement. It also offered to supply the customer with a suite in grade 20 leather at the price offered in the advertisement.

Decision

The advertisement had been in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1 (Misleading) because the sofas featured in the advertisement had not been available at the price advertised. However, Ofcom noted that Courts had apologised and offered to supply the customer the sofa at the sale price.

Conclusion

We deemed no further action necessary.

Misleading - The Very Best of Cher CD
Warner Music UK

Issue

An advertisement for 'The Very Best of Cher' CD included video clips of the singer performing, while various song titles appeared on screen. A viewer complained that having bought the compilation, one of the named songs was not on the CD.

Response

Warner Music explained that there were two different versions of 'The Very Best of Cher'. The recently launched version, without 'Song for the Lonely,' was the more widely available. The other songs mentioned in the commercial were on both. The advertiser apologised for the error and arranged for the advertising to be re-edited.

Decision

It appeared from the advertisement that 'Song for the Lonely' was included on the advertised CD when in fact it was only available on some versions. It was therefore in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1 (Misleading).

Conclusion

We deemed no further action necessary as the advertisement had been edited.

Misleading - Michael Jackson Number Ones DVD
Target NMI

Issue

A viewer complained that an advertisement for Michael Jackson's DVD 'Number Ones' contained original footage of the song 'Smooth Criminal'. However, these pictures were not actually on the DVD. The complainant thought it was misleading to show original footage for the song that did not appear on the DVD.

Response

Sony Music explained that there were two videos made for the song 'Smooth Criminal'. Due to an administrative error a few shots from one video had been included in the advertisement but they did not appear on the DVD. It apologised for the error and explained that it had had no intention of misleading viewers.

Decision

We accepted that Sony Music had no intention of deliberately misleading viewers but nevertheless the advertisement had been in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1 (Misleading) because it showed sequences from a video that did not appear on the advertised DVD. BACC advised the advertiser that the advertisement was unacceptable in its current form.

Conclusion

Ofcom deemed no further action necessary.

Offensive - Hastings College
Southern FM

Issue

A locally cleared advertisement broadcast on Southern FM encouraged people to come to a forthcoming College open evening. The advertisement was a spoof of an upbeat fictitious superstore recruitment commercial, constantly interrupted by the comments of an unimpressed College representative. Before he detailed the event and invited listeners to "Go ahead - discover your future," he referred to "checkout people" as "morons" and suggested that employment in a superstore was "the future you deserve... unless you discover Hastings College first."

A complainant believed the advertisement derided and demeaned checkout staff.

Response

Hastings College said that no offence had been intended, apologised and added: "We are deliberately an inclusive college and never exclude anyone." Capital Radio Group expressed their "concern and apologies" to the complainant.

Decision

While the intended humour was clear, the College representative denigrated checkout staff and this was a breach of Advertising and Sponsorship Code Section 2 Rule 7.

Conclusion

The advertising is not to be repeated.

Back to top