Gems TV Complaint Upheld

<img src="http://www.shoppingtelly.com/images/gemstv/thl.jpg" style="float: right; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px;" />The ASA have upheld a complaint made against Gems TV following the broadcast of a falling price auction for a morganite sterling silver ring included an on-screen graphic, indicating the current stock level, that stated "last 7". The on-screen stock level fell as and when an item was bought and continued to drop until all seven items had been sold. During the auction the presenter talked about the item and referred to the number of items remaining, including “three buyers left”, “final two” and “One chance left”.<br /><br />The Jewellery Channel challenged whether:<br />1. the auction misleadingly implied that there was very limited stock of the item remaining and put unfair pressure on viewers to make a decision about whether to purchase the item during the auction, because they understood that the item was available to buy via the Gems TV website or telesales staff immediately after the auction had finished;<br />2. the auction misleadingly implied that there were only seven units available to buy and that they were sold out at the end of the auction, because they understood that Gems TV ensured they had sufficient stock for future, repeat broadcasts of the same auction at a later date.<br /><br />Gems TV explained that their viewers tended to watch the channel for a length of time, rather than watching each auction in isolation. They explained that their presenters frequently mentioned that the start quantity was the quantity available in that particular auction and that the item may appear on screen at a later time.<br /><br />Gems TV said that the on-screen quantity was representative of the units available in that auction and not of the total quantity they held of that item. They confirmed that they had more than seven units of the item in the auction complained about.<br /><br />Gems TV said for up to an hour after the auction ended, the item could still be bought at the auction price via their telesales staff. They explained that after that time, the item would have been available via their Online boutique, but at a higher price.<br /><br />Gems TV did not believe the auction was misleading but nevertheless, they made a number of changes to its format. They explained that they had amended the on-screen graphic to state at this price instead of last and that they displayed the total quantity of the item available at the start of the auction. They believed that that made clear the relationship between the quantity available in that particular auction and the total amount they had available.<br /><br />The ASA noted that the on-screen graphic described the quantity available as the last seven and that during the auction, the presenter said "'three buyers left', 'final two' and 'one chance left'" as the graphic fell. We considered that viewers would understand the on-screen graphic, along with the presenters comments, to mean that there were only seven of those rings available to buy from Gems TV, and consequently that when the graphic reached zero there would be no stock of the item left. We understood from Gems TV, however, that that was not the case. We welcomed their decision to amend the auction format and we understood that those changes meant it was clear to viewers that the quantity available on screen was the number available to purchase in the auction, and not related to the overall quantity held by Gems TV.<br /><br />We were concerned that the auction complained about and its then format could put unfair pressure on viewers to make a purchasing decision and that they may not have had sufficient opportunity to make an informed choice about the product. Because of that, and because we understood that there were more than seven items available, we concluded that the auction was misleading.<br />The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.31 (Availability).<br /><br />The auction must not be broadcast in its previous format again.

All credit to TJC for doing this. It may smack of being under-handed and wanting to "get one over" on their rivals but in all honesty, what they're doing is pointing out how us, the buyers, are being misled.

Anything that makes the buying experience more transparent is a good thing.

Thank you to The Jewellery Channel.

Now lets hope they take them to task over the falling auction issue as well

This isn't a channel I watch but, having caught snippets of it whilst channel surfing, I would have to say that my impression on seeing/hearing 'last available stock' has been that it refers to this particular auction, and not any future auctions. I would expect, therefore, to see the same item on air again. Surely, if it was the last ever stock, the presenter would tell the viewer that. To complain about this is, in my opinion, petty and quite unwarranted. Why ASA upheld it is beyond me. The complaint against price drop certainly is valid. Obviously, if food is placed beside an appliance being sold, one will assume it has been prepared in said machine. They fully deserve to be reeprimanded for that.

louise66 said:

This isn't a channel I watch but, having caught snippets of it whilst channel surfing, I would have to say that my impression on seeing/hearing 'last available stock' has been that it refers to this particular auction, and not any future auctions. I would expect, therefore, to see the same item on air again. Surely, if it was the last ever stock, the presenter would tell the viewer that. To complain about this is, in my opinion, petty and quite unwarranted. Why ASA upheld it is beyond me. The complaint against price drop certainly is valid. Obviously, if food is placed beside an appliance being sold, one will assume it has been prepared in said machine. They fully deserve to be reeprimanded for that.

Click to expand...

I understand your concern but the words I've highlighted above weren't used. In the summary in Graham's post it indicates that you have to look at the actual words used AND the on-screen graphics eg:

"The ASA noted that the on-screen graphic described the quantity available as the last seven and that during the auction, the presenter said "'three buyers left', 'final two' and 'one chance left'" as the graphic fell. We considered that viewers would understand the on-screen graphic, along with the presenters comments, to mean that there were only seven of those rings available to buy from Gems TV, and consequently that when the graphic reached zero there would be no stock of the item left."

You could read it that it applied to that auction only but without seeing the actual presentation it's difficult to be sure. However, the ASA will have watched the tape and their judgement is based on the fact that GemsTV implied there was no stock after that particular auction - thereby potentially pressurising buyers to buy while there was still stock.