Home > TV > Broadcast Bulletins > Archive Advertising Complaints Bulletins > Issue number A12 > Breach of relevant Code

Misleading - Igia Instant Cover
TV Shop

Issue

A promotion for Igia Instant Cover claimed the make-up covered skin imperfections, such as acne, age spots and birth marks, as well as tattoos. A viewer complained that the product was no better than any ordinary foundation, and had failed to cover her minor skin blemish or her husband's tattoo.

Response

We asked TV Shop for substantiation to back its claims. TV Shop supplied a copy of a letter from the product creators, which stated that Igia Instant Cover “…blends into most skin types and tones for a natural even toned appearance.” A second letter, from another company, confirmed that the make-up was manufactured in accordance with “Good Manufacturing Practices”, and was safe and effective.

Decision

The substantiation supplied by TV Shop did not support the claims made in the advertisement. Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.2.1 states, “Licensees must obtain adequate objective evidence to support all claims.” As no substantiation was provided the advertising breached this rule.

Conclusion

The advertising must not be shown again without adequate substantiation to support the claims.

Misleading - SEH Windows
SGR-FM (Ipswich & Bury St Edmunds)

Issue

A radio advertisement for conservatories from SEH Windows stated 'Visit the area's largest show centre…' A competitor, Eclipse Home Improvements, said that its show centre was the area's largest and that it felt the advertisement was therefore misleading.

Response

SEH Windows said it had the largest square area of floor space than any other indoor show centre within the radio's transmission area. It said that as its competitor's show area was outdoor it could not be described as a show centre. It added that whereas SEH Windows was dedicated to UPVC products such as windows, doors and conservatories, Eclipse Home Improvements sold an equal amount of log cabins as it did conservatories and also it had an outside area dedicated to cane furniture. It therefore felt it was difficult to make a comparison between the two companies and on the whole it felt it did lay claim to the area's largest show centre for conservatories.

Decision

We did not think that listeners would regard a show centre to mean only an indoor area. Nor did we feel that, in the context in which it was presented, 'largest' meant only surface area. Largest could also be defined as for example, the biggest choice of conservatories. As SEH Windows did not provide substantiation to show that it had the biggest choice and because in terms of surface area (indoor or outdoor) it seemed to be smaller that its competitor, we found the claim to be unsupported and the advertising to be in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1 (Misleading advertising).

Conclusion

The advertisement should not be broadcast again in its current form until SEH can provide adequate substantiation.

Misleading - Game Network channel promotion
Rapture TV and other channels

Issue

A promotion for the television channel Game Network was shown on various channels including Rapture TV. It used short clips of video game and programme footage and described the channel as 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, total gaming television.

A viewer believed this claim was misleading as the channel only broadcast gaming related programming between 9am and 9pm, adding that it broadcast adult programming material after 9pm.

Response

Rapture TV said the channel Game Network, like many other channels, changed its line-up over a period of time. It added that the channel did broadcast 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week so this claim was not misleading. It did not feel that the description 'total gaming television' implied that the channel only showed programmes aimed at computer gaming viewers and that this was merely a tagline. It believed that the adult programmes shown after 9pm, which included Text2Date (a text message dating programme), could be described as interactive games.

Decision

We believed that the clips used in the promotion along with the script would lead viewers to think that this was video gaming programmes 24-hrs a day, 7 days a week. The clips did not show any adult programming material such as Text2Date and we did not agree that viewers would describe such programmes as video gaming television. We therefore found the advertisement in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1 (Misleading advertising).

Conclusion

The advertising should not be shown again by any licensee in its current form.

Misleading - ntl TV To Talk About

Issue

An advertisement on ntl's self-promotional channel explained to viewers that ntl had restructured its TV packages. The presenter stated '…we want to ensure that all our customers get great value entertainment at great value prices but we don't want to take away any of their service, so what we have done is improve what they've got.' She also said viewers could see great movies on a Sunday afternoon on the TCM channel.

Two viewers complained as under ntl's new structure they would move from their starter pack to the base pack and would lose three channels; UK Gold, VH1 and The Box. They felt the advertising was misleading for saying that nothing from their service would be taken away. Another viewer said that the TCM channel was only available from 9pm and therefore it was misleading to say it could be watched on a Sunday afternoon.

Response

ntl explained that it had repackaged the analogue product, with all of the existing channels, into a new more straightforward package structure. It said that nothing had been taken away as all the same channels remained available. It added that customers were notified by letter in February, March and April 2004 of the coming changes and that the advertisement supported both the repackaging structure and the letters that were sent out.

It said that because analogue TV offers limited bandwidth, service providers are obliged to share two or more channels on one frequency. Adding that Cartoon Network is shown during the day on one channel and the TCM channel at night, to make best use of allocated hours. It admitted that the advertisement did mistakenly give a description of the TCM channel being available on a Sunday afternoon and apologised for any confusion caused. It said that it was taking steps to remove the promotion content nationally and that it had already been removed as a result of the investigation.

Decision

We felt viewers would interpret the line 'we don't want to take away any of their service' to mean that they wouldn't lose any of their existing channels they had after the restructure. We noted that ntl customers were sent letters outlining the changes and therefore should have been alerted if they were likely to lose any channels. However, this was contrary to the message presented in the advertising.

We acknowledged the steps taken by ntl to remove the advertising and its admission that it was wrong to say the TCM channel was available when it was not. We therefore found it in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1 (Misleading advertising).

Conclusion

The advertising must not be shown again in its current form.

Misleading - Auctionworld

Issue

Since February 2004, just over 100 viewers have complained to Ofcom about the teleshopping channel Auctionworld. The complaints were about delays in delivery (72) and poor customer service (50).

This number of complaints has caused Ofcom serious concern. We therefore asked the licensee if there were any significant problems we should be made aware of.

Response

Auctionworld said it intentionally lengthened the delivery time on certain products to 21 working days from its usual 10-14 working days. This was made clear not only onscreen but to customers on the telephone when credit payments were made. It added that it believed that the complaints came from regular customers, who were used to its old prompt delivery times rather than the new extended time. However it added that there were four products for which the 21-day delivery period had not been met. These products were Aston Gerard watches, 1.05 carat diamond rings, A-Sure PCs and Plasma Home Cinema Packages. It said that those customers affected had been contacted and if they did not want to wait they would receive a refund. With regards to the Plasma Home Cinema Packages and the A-Sure PCs, it explained that demand for these items had been greater than supply.

Auctionworld felt that none of these were major problems and it anticipated satisfaction of all orders soon. It added that there are 20 people in its customer service department which it felt was perfectly sufficient to deal with the number of queries being raised.

Decision

Auctionworld was found to be in breach of the Code last year by one of Ofcom's predecessor's (the ITC) for unacceptable and repeated delivery delays of its products to customers.

We recognise the efforts that Auctionworld have made in informing customers about its continued delays. Nevertheless, the advertisements for the above products were in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rules 11.2.2. (e) (Fulfilment of orders within the advertised time) and/or 11.2.2 (a) (Access to adequate stocks to fulfil demand).

The majority of the 50 viewers who complained about poor customer service said they had difficulty trying to get through to the call centre as the line was either engaged or they were put on hold. We therefore also found Auctionworld's advertising to be in breach of Rule 11.2.2 (c) (Adequate arrangements to handle enquiries).

Conclusion

Auctionworld has a history of compliance failures in terms of late or non-delivery of products and poor customer service. Ofcom continues to remain seriously concerned and will carefully monitor the licensee's compliance over the coming months.

Misleading - Steepletone
Ideal World

Issue

Ideal World offered for sale a radio which, it claimed, could pick up not only BBC and commercial radio services but also aircraft and the emergency services. The presenter stressed, however, that it was illegal to listen to police messages.

A viewer said the advertisement was misleading because it implied that it was legal to listen to emergency services (other than the police). He told us “it is illegal, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, to listen to any transmission not intended to be listened to by the general public.”

Response

Ideal World acknowledged the validity of the complaint and “immediately sent an email to all producers and presenters pointing out the unacceptable nature of this sales pitch.” It added: “In mitigation, [we] can only say that in pointing out solely that it is illegal to listen to the police, the presenter reflected public perception, rather than any intention to mislead.”

Decision

The interception of private messages that people are not authorised to receive is not permitted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. The advertisement was misleading and in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rule 5.1 and the spirit (as defined in Rule 1.2) of Rule 1.1 (Complying with the law) as it had clearly suggested that it was legal to listen to aircraft messages and emergency services other than the police.

Conclusion

The advertisement must not be shown again in its present form.

Back to top