Gold Band price comparisons not appropriate

ShoppingTelly

Help Support ShoppingTelly:

A

Administrator

Guest Shopper
<img src="http://www.shoppingtelly.com/images/gemstv/gtv.jpg" style="border: currentColor; margin-right: 5px; margin-left: 5px; float: right;" />The ASA has rulled that the cost of gold band comparisons made by Gems TV in relation to Gold prices were not appropriate.<br /><br /> A presentation, on Gems TV, gave details of two items. The first item was a tanzanite 9 carat yellow gold ring. The presenter said “Based on our research of three high street stores and their bands of yellow gold, this is the price tag of the gold alone that you’re about to see on your screen - just the 3.4 grams of gold, based on our research.” Onscreen text stated “£180”. The presenter continued “So, at £180, that’s how much the gold would cost, we reckon, for the gold alone in this design.” The second item was a blue topaz and diamond 9 carat yellow gold ring. The presenter said “You are getting yourself over 2 grams of gold, and your diamonds in there as well. The gram worth of gold here would take you over £100, based on our research of three high street stores and their yellow gold bands. We’re working out at an average of £53 per gram of gold.”<br /><br /> The Jewellery Channel Ltd challenged whether:<br /><br /> 1. the claim that the gold in the tanzanite 9 carat yellow gold ring was worth £180 was misleading and could be substantiated; and
<br /> 2. the claim that the gold in the blue topaz and diamond 9 carat yellow gold ring was worth over £100 was misleading and could be substantiated.<br /><br /> Gems TV said that in both presentations it was made clear that the value of the gold in the rings was based on their research of yellow gold bands from three high street stores. They provided receipts for three 9 carat yellow gold rings which had been bought from three different high street stores on 4 October 2010. The rings were priced at £150, £139 and £229. Gems TV said they weighed each ring and worked out the average price per gram of gold in the rings to be £54. By applying the average price per gram from their research, Gems TV calculated the worth of the gold in the tanzanite ring to be £183.60 and the worth of the gold in the blue topaz and diamond ring to be £117.18.<br /><br /> Gems TV noted that The Jewellery Channel Ltd (The Jewellery Channel) had challenged the valuations of the gold in the rings based on their calculations of the gold fix spot price value of pure gold on the day of the presentations. The Jewellery Channels calculations showed that the market price of one gram of 9 carat gold on 27 October 2010 was £10.95. Gems TV said that the spot price of gold was indicative of the price a commodities trader or jewellery manufacturer would pay for pure gold, and was therefore not indicative of retail prices.<br /><br /> The ASA noted that the Jewellery Channels challenge of Gems TVs valuation of the gold in the rings was based on the gold fix spot price of pure gold on the day of the presentations. We noted that the gold fix price was the daily price at which commodities traders, investors and jewellery manufacturers bought 24 carat un-worked gold. We considered that once gold had been worked into a ring it gained further value based on factors such as the intricacy of the design, the skill of workmanship involved, the gold weight and content and any finishing techniques applied. We also considered that the final price at which a ring was retailed would also take into account the quality and quantity of any gemstones and the profit margins of the retailer. We therefore concluded that valuing a ring solely by calculating the price per gram of gold from the gold fix price on any given day was not appropriate, because it failed to take into account the range of factors which affected the overall value of a ring.<br /><br /> Nonetheless, we considered that the comparisons made by Gems TV were not appropriate either. We considered that their comparisons implied that the price of a plain gold ring was calculated solely on the basis of its value per gram of gold, and that that value per gram of gold could be applied to the gold bands comprising part of their own jewelled rings. We considered that the comparisons did not compare like for like and were therefore not appropriate, because they did not take into account the range of factors which affected the retail price of a ring. We concluded that the comparisons, and therefore the ads, were misleading.<br /><br /> The ads breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.18 (Prices).<br /><br /> The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Gems TV to ensure that they did not make price comparisons based on the price per gram of precious metal.<br /><br /> <a href="http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/3/Coloured-Rocks-Ltd/TF_ADJ_50024.aspx">Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)</a>
 
Thank goodness someone challenged them because I and many others on this forum have long since been severely irritated by those stupid, meaningless ads. I'm sure many a thread on the topic could be found.
Now if only the same would happen for their claims of 'genuine falling auctions' and countless other pie in the sky statements.
 
You know me, never one to say "I told you so", but this is for Mr Bennett for trying to make me feel guilty when I had the audacity to criticise the ad and the persistent banging on about this "average" gold price nonsense. <a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZNxpt484YYGB%2526i%253D4%252F4%255F15%255F6%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_15_6.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252Fnocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egif%253Fi%253D4%252F4_15_6%2526uiv%253D3.0/image.gif"></a> xxxxxxxxxxx
 
Just goes to show that GemsTV refuse to listen to customers even when faced with reasoned arguments! Perhaps if they had, they wouldn't have this judgement against them.

Well done and thank you to TJC!
 
Now all we need to do is to ask the ASA to uphold some material to cover up some of the Gems.TV's female presenters to cover their chest potatoes! I am a red blooded straight male but even I think they are too much!


As much as I am pleased this has been upheld and that TJC did it, I hope this doesn't start an inter channel war as I hate it when one channel disses another.

PJ
 
Now all we need to do is to ask the ASA to uphold some material to cover up some of the Gems.TV's female presenters to cover their chest potatoes! I am a red blooded straight male but even I think they are too much!


As much as I am pleased this has been upheld and that TJC did it, I hope this doesn't start an inter channel war as I hate it when one channel disses another.

PJ

I think TJC is above that, and conducted themselves with discretion by treating this matter in the way that they have. Porkies and nonsense figures are unfair competition, and I'm glad TJC won this for their own sakes as much as ours. If there should be a "war" I'd imagine that Gems will be fighting it alone, but hopefully they are still big enough to take it on the chin. xxxxxxxxxxxx

PS - I doubt it will do Gems any further damage beyond ourselves, as what damage there was to do has already been done, and in the grand scheme of things was probably very small. I very much doubt many people will even know this has happened. xx
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top