TheManWithNoName
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2023
- Messages
- 2,417
I dropped hints on here a few weeks ago that something was brewing, but the ASA told me to keep it confidential until 5th March 2025 because the ASA Investigator's 'recommendation' had to be formally approved by the ASA Council. As it's now the 5th March, and going to be published in the ASA website later today. I can now put it on here.
Late last year, I reported a sales pitch about some pearls. From memory, I believe it was Troth and Lindsey Carr. I challenged whether:
1. The price statements made by the presenters about the resale or “market price” of the product were misleading; and
2. The price comparison with other retailer’s product, priced at £975, was misleading because the product was different in quality.
Here's the description of the sales pitch (cut and pasted from the ASA's response to my complaint):
The presenter showed a variety of pearls on screen from other retailers, with prices stated as ranging between $700 per pearl to $12,000. He displayed a product listing on another retailer’s website, which he described as the “biggest, most prestigious jewellery house in the world.” The product listing showed Tahitian pearl earrings in 18k White Gold, 9-10mm, priced at £975. He stated “These aren’t even 11mm […] from 11 to 12mm the price doubles. Say from 10-11mm, it’s going to be £1,500, and then you double it, it becomes £3,000 […].”
He then said “We’re here in the midst of our twentieth-year anniversary, offering the only Tahitian pearls you’re going to see at this event. […] Magnificent, matched pairs of 12mm top-grade triple-A Tahitian pearls.” He then started a 30 second clock, which appeared as a timer ticking on screen.
Another presenter commented “It is literally a chance of a lifetime to acquire the immaculate quality that we’re looking at on screen right now and they can be yours. Within seconds, you’ve just got to be so quick”. As the 30 second clock started again, she stated “We don’t need to do this right now, we could take these pearls, sell them on, for probably 10 times the price you’re going to get today, at least. You could go on and do that, we can’t stop you doing that.” The main presenter then said “If you’re going to, I’d buy two pairs, for goodness’ sake keep one.” The price started at £899.
The camera went back to the previous presenter who said “We’re better than anyone else, if we times this price by 10, right now, £8,999 we’re still better, because these are a matched pair of 12mm, so times that price by 10 and were still way better, in our opinion”.
The main presenter then started the clock again: “So we’re at £899, how low can we go? Let’s go straight down from here to £599 […] £300 coming off the price straight away.” He said “Conceivably we could put a zero on that and we will still be market price.” He then informed viewers of another price reduction. He encouraged potential buyers to have the earrings seen by a professional and to have them insured: “So at £599, I’m telling you, go and get these valued and it should be double, and if it’s not, send them back. […] But I’m still going lower.”
The price was then reduced to £499 and then to £369 as the final price that customers paid for the earrings.
Gemporia's response to the ASA:
1. Gemporia Ltd said that they determined their pricing using an independent, market-driven pricing guide and that their advertised price was based on the quality and size of the pearls. They shared a copy of that guide specifically related to Tahitian Black Cultured Pearls. They said that the presenter was very clear in his presentation when discussing these prices and comparisons.
2. Gemporia said that they did not believe that the price comparison with the other retailer’s website was misleading. They said that the retailer’s pair of Tahitian pearl stud earrings were of lesser quality as they were 9-10mm in size compared to their 12mm matched pair of Tahitian pearl earrings.
The ASA's Assessment (Upheld):
1. Upheld
The CAP guidance on “Teleshopping price indications and comparisons” (the Guidance) explained that advertisers must ensure that comparative or illustrative prices, whether they be Recommended Retail Prices (RRP), guide prices, or similar, are genuine and not likely to mislead and that this applied both to explicit and implied comparisons.
The presenters made several different statements in the ad in relation to the resale and “marketprice” of the earrings. At the start of the presentation, when the price of the earrings was listed at £899, one of the presenters indicated that £8,999, ten times the advertised purchase price of the earrings, would still be below market value for the earrings. When the purchase price was shown on screen as £599, the presenter said that “we could put a zero on that and we will still be market price”, and later in the ad, the presenter stated that the same earrings would be valued at double the purchase price of £599. The purchase price was later dropped to £369, and at that point, the presenter stated that the earrings could be sold for 10 times more than that purchase price. Over the course of the ad, it was stated that the earrings were valued at £1,198, £3,690, £5,990 and £8,999. The ASA considered that viewers would understand those claims to mean that the earrings could be resold or valued at between £1,198 and £8,999.
Gemporia provided a table from the pricing guide which they had used to determine the value of the earrings. The table included price ranges for Tahitian Black Cultured pearls that were rounded matched pairs. The table showed a range of prices in US dollars for those pearls according to their size (9mm to 13mm) and their quality (Commercial, Good, Fine and Extra Fine). For 12mm matched pairs, the size of the earrings featured in the ad, the prices given in the table were between $345 for “Commercial” grade and $4,200 for an “Extra Fine” grade. We therefore understood that, according to the pricing guide, the maximum value for a similar pair of 12mm earrings as those featured in the ad was $4,200. In any case, we were not provided with any substantiation to demonstrate the quality grade of the advertised earrings. Furthermore, we considered the maximum value given in the pricing guide was considerably lower than two of the “market prices” referenced in the ad, specifically the claims that the earrings were valued at £5,990 and £8,999.
No further explanation was provided regarding the conflicting statements about the resale and market value of the earrings. In the absence of adequate evidence demonstrating that other retailers had sold similar 12mm Tahitian pearl earrings of comparable quality, with the same carat and quantity of gold, at the prices mentioned in the ad in the last six months, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code Rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.18 (Prices).
2. Upheld
The Guidance stated that comparisons with competitors’ prices must be with the prices for identical, or substantially equivalent products and that broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to support price claims before transmission. Prior to when the advertised earrings were shown on screen, the presenter showed a different set of Tahitian pearl earrings, which he described as being from the “biggest, most prestigious jewellery house in the world”. They were priced at £975, and he discussed the size of those competitor pearl earrings and the impact that had on their value, stating “These aren’t even 11mm […] from 11 to 12mm the price doubles.” Later on in the presentation, the presenter referred to the size of the advertised earrings as 12mm and said “We’re better than anyone else”. We considered that consumers would understand that the comparison with the competitor product was made to establish the value of the advertised pair of earrings, and because no further differences between the two products were discussed, we considered that implied that the competitor earrings were of comparable grade and quality to those being advertised.
We were not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the advertised earrings were of comparable grade and quality to the competitor's product. We expected this assessment to encompass both the gold and the pearls, considering factors such as the value of the gold, and the lustre, surface quality, and matching of the pearls. We noted from Gemporia’s response that they believed the competitor product was of lower quality due to the difference in pearl size. However, we understood that the competitor’s product contained 18k white gold while the earrings advertised contained 9k gold, which meant the competitor product was higher in gold content, more durable and, therefore, would be higher in value. We therefore considered that the two pairs of earrings were neither identical nor substantially equivalent to justify comparing them with each other. On that basis, we concluded the basis of the price comparison had not been made clear.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code Rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) 3.9 (Substantiation), 3.18 (Prices), 3.33, 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price Comparisons).
ACTION:
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Gemporia Ltd to ensure they held adequate evidence to substantiate price statements, including evidence relating to the usual selling price of their products. We also told them that comparisons with competitors’ prices must be with the prices for identical, or substantially equivalent products.
Late last year, I reported a sales pitch about some pearls. From memory, I believe it was Troth and Lindsey Carr. I challenged whether:
1. The price statements made by the presenters about the resale or “market price” of the product were misleading; and
2. The price comparison with other retailer’s product, priced at £975, was misleading because the product was different in quality.
Here's the description of the sales pitch (cut and pasted from the ASA's response to my complaint):
The presenter showed a variety of pearls on screen from other retailers, with prices stated as ranging between $700 per pearl to $12,000. He displayed a product listing on another retailer’s website, which he described as the “biggest, most prestigious jewellery house in the world.” The product listing showed Tahitian pearl earrings in 18k White Gold, 9-10mm, priced at £975. He stated “These aren’t even 11mm […] from 11 to 12mm the price doubles. Say from 10-11mm, it’s going to be £1,500, and then you double it, it becomes £3,000 […].”
He then said “We’re here in the midst of our twentieth-year anniversary, offering the only Tahitian pearls you’re going to see at this event. […] Magnificent, matched pairs of 12mm top-grade triple-A Tahitian pearls.” He then started a 30 second clock, which appeared as a timer ticking on screen.
Another presenter commented “It is literally a chance of a lifetime to acquire the immaculate quality that we’re looking at on screen right now and they can be yours. Within seconds, you’ve just got to be so quick”. As the 30 second clock started again, she stated “We don’t need to do this right now, we could take these pearls, sell them on, for probably 10 times the price you’re going to get today, at least. You could go on and do that, we can’t stop you doing that.” The main presenter then said “If you’re going to, I’d buy two pairs, for goodness’ sake keep one.” The price started at £899.
The camera went back to the previous presenter who said “We’re better than anyone else, if we times this price by 10, right now, £8,999 we’re still better, because these are a matched pair of 12mm, so times that price by 10 and were still way better, in our opinion”.
The main presenter then started the clock again: “So we’re at £899, how low can we go? Let’s go straight down from here to £599 […] £300 coming off the price straight away.” He said “Conceivably we could put a zero on that and we will still be market price.” He then informed viewers of another price reduction. He encouraged potential buyers to have the earrings seen by a professional and to have them insured: “So at £599, I’m telling you, go and get these valued and it should be double, and if it’s not, send them back. […] But I’m still going lower.”
The price was then reduced to £499 and then to £369 as the final price that customers paid for the earrings.
Gemporia's response to the ASA:
1. Gemporia Ltd said that they determined their pricing using an independent, market-driven pricing guide and that their advertised price was based on the quality and size of the pearls. They shared a copy of that guide specifically related to Tahitian Black Cultured Pearls. They said that the presenter was very clear in his presentation when discussing these prices and comparisons.
2. Gemporia said that they did not believe that the price comparison with the other retailer’s website was misleading. They said that the retailer’s pair of Tahitian pearl stud earrings were of lesser quality as they were 9-10mm in size compared to their 12mm matched pair of Tahitian pearl earrings.
The ASA's Assessment (Upheld):
1. Upheld
The CAP guidance on “Teleshopping price indications and comparisons” (the Guidance) explained that advertisers must ensure that comparative or illustrative prices, whether they be Recommended Retail Prices (RRP), guide prices, or similar, are genuine and not likely to mislead and that this applied both to explicit and implied comparisons.
The presenters made several different statements in the ad in relation to the resale and “marketprice” of the earrings. At the start of the presentation, when the price of the earrings was listed at £899, one of the presenters indicated that £8,999, ten times the advertised purchase price of the earrings, would still be below market value for the earrings. When the purchase price was shown on screen as £599, the presenter said that “we could put a zero on that and we will still be market price”, and later in the ad, the presenter stated that the same earrings would be valued at double the purchase price of £599. The purchase price was later dropped to £369, and at that point, the presenter stated that the earrings could be sold for 10 times more than that purchase price. Over the course of the ad, it was stated that the earrings were valued at £1,198, £3,690, £5,990 and £8,999. The ASA considered that viewers would understand those claims to mean that the earrings could be resold or valued at between £1,198 and £8,999.
Gemporia provided a table from the pricing guide which they had used to determine the value of the earrings. The table included price ranges for Tahitian Black Cultured pearls that were rounded matched pairs. The table showed a range of prices in US dollars for those pearls according to their size (9mm to 13mm) and their quality (Commercial, Good, Fine and Extra Fine). For 12mm matched pairs, the size of the earrings featured in the ad, the prices given in the table were between $345 for “Commercial” grade and $4,200 for an “Extra Fine” grade. We therefore understood that, according to the pricing guide, the maximum value for a similar pair of 12mm earrings as those featured in the ad was $4,200. In any case, we were not provided with any substantiation to demonstrate the quality grade of the advertised earrings. Furthermore, we considered the maximum value given in the pricing guide was considerably lower than two of the “market prices” referenced in the ad, specifically the claims that the earrings were valued at £5,990 and £8,999.
No further explanation was provided regarding the conflicting statements about the resale and market value of the earrings. In the absence of adequate evidence demonstrating that other retailers had sold similar 12mm Tahitian pearl earrings of comparable quality, with the same carat and quantity of gold, at the prices mentioned in the ad in the last six months, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code Rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.18 (Prices).
2. Upheld
The Guidance stated that comparisons with competitors’ prices must be with the prices for identical, or substantially equivalent products and that broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to support price claims before transmission. Prior to when the advertised earrings were shown on screen, the presenter showed a different set of Tahitian pearl earrings, which he described as being from the “biggest, most prestigious jewellery house in the world”. They were priced at £975, and he discussed the size of those competitor pearl earrings and the impact that had on their value, stating “These aren’t even 11mm […] from 11 to 12mm the price doubles.” Later on in the presentation, the presenter referred to the size of the advertised earrings as 12mm and said “We’re better than anyone else”. We considered that consumers would understand that the comparison with the competitor product was made to establish the value of the advertised pair of earrings, and because no further differences between the two products were discussed, we considered that implied that the competitor earrings were of comparable grade and quality to those being advertised.
We were not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the advertised earrings were of comparable grade and quality to the competitor's product. We expected this assessment to encompass both the gold and the pearls, considering factors such as the value of the gold, and the lustre, surface quality, and matching of the pearls. We noted from Gemporia’s response that they believed the competitor product was of lower quality due to the difference in pearl size. However, we understood that the competitor’s product contained 18k white gold while the earrings advertised contained 9k gold, which meant the competitor product was higher in gold content, more durable and, therefore, would be higher in value. We therefore considered that the two pairs of earrings were neither identical nor substantially equivalent to justify comparing them with each other. On that basis, we concluded the basis of the price comparison had not been made clear.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code Rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) 3.9 (Substantiation), 3.18 (Prices), 3.33, 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price Comparisons).
ACTION:
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Gemporia Ltd to ensure they held adequate evidence to substantiate price statements, including evidence relating to the usual selling price of their products. We also told them that comparisons with competitors’ prices must be with the prices for identical, or substantially equivalent products.
