bingowings
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- May 31, 2013
- Messages
- 502
Bid victimised
After receiving a reply from the ASA for some complaints i lodged against OTHER shopping channels its seems pretty clear to me that BID are being victimised by the ASA. if the same complaints had of been lodged against BID there is no doubt in my mind they would have been upheld.
examples:
1) You mention that you consider that the presentation of a deal described as ‘incomparable’, stating that trade buyers might purchase the product and as something that the presenter considered viewers would not get an opportunity similar to again to be misleading. While we appreciate your concern, these claims in the context of a teleshopping presentation would appear more likely to be subjective and generally understood as the presenter’s opinion, rather than objective claims which we could justifiably ask for substantiation for. Consequently, we do not propose to take further action on these specific points.
If it was BID the opinions of the presenter would without doubt represent the opinions of the channel would never be dismissed as just 'subjective'
2) You mention that a presenter stated that the price of a piece of jewellery advertised was under £30; I understand you object to this as postage costs would put the final cost above this level. While we appreciate your concern, we do not consider that this is something which is likely to generally mislead consumers to their detriment. We note that the price of postage and packaging is made clear onscreen
I think we all know what would happen if BID ran an 'under £30' promotion but didn't mention the p&p and didn't take it into account with their promotion. why is it enough for another channel to just put the extra costs on screen but BID have to verbally tell the audience each product? because they are more expensive? thats nonsense. either you have to mention p&p or you dont!
3) Regarding your concerns about a rose gold and sterling silver ring, which you believed was misleadingly suggested to be solid gold, we note that text onscreen did state “rose gold flash sterling silver” and understand that the presenter did not specify that the ring was solid gold. However, our contact at 'the channel acknowledged that the presenter could have made clearer the fact that the ring was plated silver, and has taken steps to make sure that this is clarified in future, similar presentations.
At no point in the sell did the presenter say it was plated. onscreen it said simply 9ct gold 925 and at the bottom it said 9ct gold 'flash' sterling silver. i have never heard 'plated' called 'flash' before. and the channel in question seems to be able to call plated gold plated gold the rest of the time. If bid did this it would be an upheld complaint. guaranteed!
This is clearly a witch hunt against BID TV. how can it possibly be one rule for one company and another rule for another? i know you are going to list the wrong doings of bid tv. but they are no worse than other channels. the difference is they are being found guilty while others are getting off scott free.the rules should be enforced FOR EVERY CHANNEL OR NONE AT ALL! they clearly have it in for BID!
After receiving a reply from the ASA for some complaints i lodged against OTHER shopping channels its seems pretty clear to me that BID are being victimised by the ASA. if the same complaints had of been lodged against BID there is no doubt in my mind they would have been upheld.
examples:
1) You mention that you consider that the presentation of a deal described as ‘incomparable’, stating that trade buyers might purchase the product and as something that the presenter considered viewers would not get an opportunity similar to again to be misleading. While we appreciate your concern, these claims in the context of a teleshopping presentation would appear more likely to be subjective and generally understood as the presenter’s opinion, rather than objective claims which we could justifiably ask for substantiation for. Consequently, we do not propose to take further action on these specific points.
If it was BID the opinions of the presenter would without doubt represent the opinions of the channel would never be dismissed as just 'subjective'
2) You mention that a presenter stated that the price of a piece of jewellery advertised was under £30; I understand you object to this as postage costs would put the final cost above this level. While we appreciate your concern, we do not consider that this is something which is likely to generally mislead consumers to their detriment. We note that the price of postage and packaging is made clear onscreen
I think we all know what would happen if BID ran an 'under £30' promotion but didn't mention the p&p and didn't take it into account with their promotion. why is it enough for another channel to just put the extra costs on screen but BID have to verbally tell the audience each product? because they are more expensive? thats nonsense. either you have to mention p&p or you dont!
3) Regarding your concerns about a rose gold and sterling silver ring, which you believed was misleadingly suggested to be solid gold, we note that text onscreen did state “rose gold flash sterling silver” and understand that the presenter did not specify that the ring was solid gold. However, our contact at 'the channel acknowledged that the presenter could have made clearer the fact that the ring was plated silver, and has taken steps to make sure that this is clarified in future, similar presentations.
At no point in the sell did the presenter say it was plated. onscreen it said simply 9ct gold 925 and at the bottom it said 9ct gold 'flash' sterling silver. i have never heard 'plated' called 'flash' before. and the channel in question seems to be able to call plated gold plated gold the rest of the time. If bid did this it would be an upheld complaint. guaranteed!
This is clearly a witch hunt against BID TV. how can it possibly be one rule for one company and another rule for another? i know you are going to list the wrong doings of bid tv. but they are no worse than other channels. the difference is they are being found guilty while others are getting off scott free.the rules should be enforced FOR EVERY CHANNEL OR NONE AT ALL! they clearly have it in for BID!
Last edited:
