ASA Adjudication on sit-up Ltd - Wednesday 7th December 2011

ShoppingTelly

Help Support ShoppingTelly:

Greg

Registered Shopper
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
2,320
ASA Adjudication on Sit-up Ltd
Sit-up Ltd t/a Bid TV
Unit 11 Acton Park Industrial Estate
Eastman Road
London
Acton
W3 7QE
Date: 7 December 2011
Media: Television
Sector: Retail
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-171720

Background
Ad
Two teleshopping broadcasts on Bid TV, viewed in September 2011, for an "Intempo Evolve" home entertainment system, in the format of a reverse auction; in both ads, as the items were sold the "quantity left" figure on screen decreased. As the figure approached zero, the presenter made statements such as "[the producer] just told me people are going to miss out again" and "Be on that phone now! I don't want you missing out". The presenter then asked the producer "Can you get any more in? We have to do it now. How many can you get?" and persuaded the producer to release more stock of the product. In the first broadcast the presenter was given 25 more units and he stated "I've got 25 more, that's all I've got" and then when they ran out he was given an additional 25 units. In the second broadcast the presenter was given 30 more units once the original number had sold out, followed by additional 20 units.

Issue
The complainant challenged whether the auction misleadingly implied that there was a limited amount of stock remaining and that that put unfair pressure on viewers to make a decision about whether to purchase the item during the auction.

BCAP Code
3.1 3.31

Response
Sit-up said that during an individual product sell, the quantity that was displayed on-screen was all that was available for consumers to purchase at that time. The quantity on-screen was not a full reflection of the stock that may be available for them to offer of the particular product, just as what was seen on a shop floor might not reflect all of the stock available. They stated that when the item in question proved to be popular they made the decision to make more, previously unscheduled stock, available for purchase, just as any retailer would replenish stock when it sells out. They acknowledged that they suggested to the customer that they had a limited opportunity to buy the product and therefore to make it immediately available afterwards offered a confusing message concerning the availability of the stock and implied undue pressure to purchase. They had reviewed the way they managed stock and would ensure that extra units of a specific product were never scheduled immediately after the close of an individual product sell. They said that when a product was sold on multiple occasions throughout the day, they would ensure that the presenter highlighted that the quantity was available to purchase "at this time" and not to suggest that it was the last available stock.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that the on-screen text showed the "quantity left" figure decrease to zero and that, during the auction, the presenter said "[the producer] just told me people are going to miss out again" and "I've got 25 more, that's all I've got". We considered that viewers would understand that to mean that once the number on-screen reached zero there would be no stock of the item left. We considered that to make the product available again immediately after the auction had ended offered a confusing message to the customer and placed undue pressure on them to purchase. We welcomed Sit-up's decision to review the way they managed their stock and their assurance that they would not suggest they were offering the last available stock if that was not the case. Nevertheless, we were concerned that the auction 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 and, because of that, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.31 (Availability).

Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told sit-up to ensure that they would not suggest they were offering the last available stock if that was not the case.
 
Last edited:
What a seedy little outfit they are. Peopled, front of camera, with hasbeen and never goingto be folk. God knows what's behing the camera.
 
That seems to be the least of their sharp practices :cheeky: I hardly see a show these days when they aren't being at the very least misleading. Anyone for a 24ct gold bracelet?
 
Last edited:
The 24 carat jewellery shenanigans are quite frankly appalling. This is cowboy market trader tactics, for sure. Disgusting practices.

I am considering making a complaint to the ASA.
 
That seems to be the least of their sharp practices :cheeky:
It may be a deception but it only scores about 3 out of 10 on the deceptometer compared to some of the other things that have been said and done on these channels.

More to the point it must be very depressing to be a presenter on one of these channels and having to lie for much of the time about what they are selling, therefore it's no wonder that any presenter with half a conscience eventually decides to leave the channels unless they absolutely have no choice but to stay (perhaps applicable in the case of Peter Simon).

The remaining presenters must either be very desperate or have the morals of an alley cat.
 
I remember this. Paul Becque was conducting the auction at the time....

There were scores of people who missed out each time they reset the quantity... I wonder if they'll be refunding those customers who 'missed out'.

Tut tut.
 
As usual they get off with a slap on the wrist, I've seen Peter Simon doing this too on childrens toys they sold out then there was a pause whilst Peter Looked confused before doing a roleplay on his own telling us the discussions that were happening to try and get more stock, They then sold that amount and then they amazingly managed to get some more, it seems unlikely that they could get it on air so quick, Your talking 3 minutes at most to apparently have discussions by multiple departments, They must think were stupid to believe its not pre planned, We will sell these at £9.99 loads of people will miss out then lets offer it again and if demand is high lets do it a third time, Clever idea because once the first lot goes the price is locked where as if they had 600 to begin with the price would probably go lower or end up with lots unsold stuck in the warehouse
 
As £1 megadrop said slap on the wrist, & dont do it again. There are loads of incidents this shambles have breeched over the years !! Im surprised that they are still in business !! After all most of the tat they sell these days, is a better deal to you than it was to us !! Or your getting it for less than we paid, & dont get me started on the deal or no deal bull !!
 
As usual they get off with a slap on the wrist, I've seen Peter Simon doing this too on childrens toys they sold out then there was a pause whilst Peter Looked confused before doing a roleplay on his own telling us the discussions that were happening to try and get more stock, They then sold that amount and then they amazingly managed to get some more, it seems unlikely that they could get it on air so quick, Your talking 3 minutes at most to apparently have discussions by multiple departments, They must think were stupid to believe its not pre planned, We will sell these at £9.99 loads of people will miss out then lets offer it again and if demand is high lets do it a third time, Clever idea because once the first lot goes the price is locked where as if they had 600 to begin with the price would probably go lower or end up with lots unsold stuck in the warehouse


But this isn't a slap on the wrist, as it's upheld. If they do it again, they can be fined for it.
 
Steve McDonald did this as well a few weeks ago he said "we have found some more for you".

Steve also did something else that was a bit dodgy a few Saturdays ago he was selling "Ice Grippers" for shoes the price was £29.99 he had three sizes the main size which locks the price locked at £29.99 he then paniced and started saying to the producer can we stop this now and bring them back later he couldn't because the price had locked already so he had to carry on with the other sizes not selling cos the price was so high.
 
The more I watch the more I think they are no better than Auction World. Why is it every night with the avalanches do they go through the whole charade of the assistant choosing which item is sold next and then the producer offers them a gamble as if it were a game show? The whole getting extra stock after an item closes is bad enough as it pressures people to deciding but it is made 10 times worse as people have to pay £1.53 for the call if they are not a winning bidder and then have to call again when they magically find some stock.

PJ
 
But this isn't a slap on the wrist, as it's upheld. If they do it again, they can be fined for it.
The way they're currently behaving is reminiscent of a company who's trying to make as much money as they can today because they seem to be unsure as to whether or not they will even exist in six months' time. That statement may not be true but if it's possible to make a sensible profit in selling products above board (i.e. no lies) then why indulge in unethical behaviour when they should be aware that given enough complaints they could be fined out of existence?
 
I agree with this statement. The stuff that they have been doing over the past few weeks with the jewellery telling people it's 24 carat gold when most of it is plated or finished which really isn't the same.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top