Lowest ever price?Previously closed higher?

Please please can rocks presenters be a little less misleading when trumpeting this claim. Tonight for example a moonstone bracelet was heralded as having closed higher previously............maybe, BUT it had also closed lower. In chat we are not allowed to comment - I understand this - they dont want us declaring - hang fire friends I got this for alot less. But for a presenter to suggest this has closed much higher to encourage us to dive for our phones is unfair when they have sold it for less. Moving along, I have seen and heard claims of lowest ever price ...and people brave enough to incur the wrath of the chat police pipe up - I got it for less........

Can the Rocks man/lady IC please bring this to presenters attention - after all they cant invite positive feed back, flaunt it and use it as a sales tool but then gripe when people correct the presenters inaccuracies. If the presenter isnt making inaccurate or misleading claims then I accept we shouldnt tout the previously great price we have paid but if the information encouraging sales is wrong then we should be allowed to correct for all to see.

anyone got any views?

I don't watch either channel anymore but it sounds like some of the bad habits from Gems are creeping from out of the walls. xxxxxx

If feedback is invited then it should NOT be censored unless it's blatently untrue. I hadn't realised that you were not allowed to discuss prices on Chat. Why not? What's there to hide? A few lost sales if somebody believes they could have got something for a few pounds less? Isn't there a guarantee for this anyway?

I believe that these presenter's comments would not sit well with the ASA. Statements should be factual and NOT misleading.

Unfortunately this is phrase used in a generally misleading manner even when technically true. It's often not only the lowest but the only previous price, but those of us with half an ounce know very well that this is intended to sound as though this is a price that has just been achieved at the time of watching. I'm really cheesed off with the lot of them. If I had my way I would do away with falling auctions altogether, clocks or no clocks. They are simply a useful tool for the seller to hide behind (rules for auctions being much more in the seller's favour than the more strict set price retail sales). Time to come out, say what they want, and let us decide if we wish to pay that or not without all the misleading distractions. All sense of getting a bargain has now gone out of them, and with that so has the fun element. xxxxxxx

Meeshoo said:

If feedback is invited then it should NOT be censored unless it's blatently untrue. I hadn't realised that you were not allowed to discuss prices on Chat. Why not? What's there to hide? A few lost sales if somebody believes they could have got something for a few pounds less? Isn't there a guarantee for this anyway?

I believe that these presenter's comments would not sit well with the ASA. Statements should be factual and NOT misleading.

Click to expand...

Sadly Meesh, there's now a way around this one too. Drop a carat from a six trillion carat necklace and it gets a new product number. xxxxxx