My motivation

[Wirral70]

Quite.

The ASA have to pass on the issue at some point, if they feel that they cannot bring a conclusion. They are not expressing an opinion of guilt, as many on this forum appear to assume.

I suppose it depends what your interpretation of guilt is. It is fact they have Upheld 27 complaints so clearly the complaints were not a figment of some obsessive, nuisance complainers imaginations.

I hope OFCOM go back at least a year and review a multitude of content from these channels, i'm almost certain it would explain what motivated people to finally complain but make no mistake, this isn't a witch hunt. This is a self made mess, this has been caused by a few presenters who for whatever reason appear unable to adhere to the compliance standards expected from viewers. They get it from other channels so why not these?

Let's just go back a few months, before Sit Up were told to clearly state the P+P. What went on was an absolute abomination, being railroaded into buying nine, £1 products 'for just £9', 'where else could you buy nine (products) for £9' etc etc when in reality it would cost you over £80 to do so.

THAT is the kind of incident that has caused the outrage, and in my opinion it's all their own fault.

 

[deedee]

Aren't you just a Saint, PJ.

So selfless, and not at all bothering.

:star:

Just who the heck do you think you are to come on here to patronise and insult this forum member?
Whoever you are, you are incredibly rude and insensitive.
PJ has just disclosed something very personal which is close to his heart and explained his driver behind why he so badly wants the channels to improve.
We all want the channels to improve and it seems the only way they'll learn is the hard way.........so be it........we don't want them to close, we just want honesty and transparency with an end to shoddy selling techniques. Hopefully they can go back to the fun they used to be.
So don't come on here attacking people for no apparent reason; after all, you haven't put up any valid or logical argument for the channels have you?
If you have nothing constructive to say or if you don't like it here, leave us alone and go and troll somewhere else.

 

[nothingtodowithbid]

Just who the heck do you think you are to come on here to patronise and insult this forum member?
Whoever you are, you are incredibly rude and insensitive.
PJ has just disclosed something very personal which is close to his heart and explained his driver behind why he so badly wants the channels to improve.
We all want the channels to improve and it seems the only way they'll learn is the hard way.........so be it........we don't want them to close, we just want honesty and transparency with an end to shoddy selling techniques. Hopefully they can go back to the fun they used to be.
So don't come on here attacking people for no apparent reason; after all, you haven't put up any valid or logical argument for the channels have you?
If you have nothing constructive to say or if you don't like it here, leave us alone and go and troll somewhere else.

What right do I have? As much right as you to post on here.

I think I have described my view in the posts on this thread. Feel free to have a gander if you fancy.

 

[Paul_s]

I suppose it depends what your interpretation of guilt is. It is fact they have Upheld 27 complaints so clearly the complaints were not a figment of some obsessive, nuisance complainers imaginations.

I hope OFCOM go back at least a year and review a multitude of content from these channels, i'm almost certain it would explain what motivated people to finally complain but make no mistake, this isn't a witch hunt. This is a self made mess, this has been caused by a few presenters who for whatever reason appear unable to adhere to the compliance standards expected from viewers. They get it from other channels so why not these?

Let's just go back a few months, before Sit Up were told to clearly state the P+P. What went on was an absolute abomination, being railroaded into buying nine, £1 products 'for just £9', 'where else could you buy nine (products) for £9' etc etc when in reality it would cost you over £80 to do so.

THAT is the kind of incident that has caused the outrage, and in my opinion it's all their own fault.

I'd take issue with the postage costs on multiple items. Although presenters now mention this on air ---- just how many 'customers' have been bullied/duped into paying up to £80 in postage costs for an item which could be sent round the world 10 times over with tracking/insurance for 10 Tanzanite rings weighing less than 600g? Unreasonable or just pure greed? The management of Bid have a lot of questions to answer...

Delicious no doubt.

 

[Wirral70]

What right do I have? As much right as you to post on here.

I think I have described my view in the posts on this thread. Feel free to have a gander if you fancy.

I don't know whether you have done this too but I have taken a very good look at all 27 Upheld complaints.

I will be the first to admit that one or two of them would appear (to me at least) somewhat trivial. However, many of them are not and just going by the volume of them it could suggest there is something seriously amiss at the channels and that will be for OFCOM to decide.

We are all free to have our opinions but I personally cannot help thinking that something has gone seriously wrong at this company. These channels appear to have changed beyond all recognition in the last few years and we need to find out why.

 

[nothingtodowithbid]

I don't know whether you have done this too but I have taken a very good look at all 27 Upheld complaints.

I will be the first to admit that one or two of them would appear (to me at least) somewhat trivial. However, many of them are not and just going by the volume of them it could suggest there is something seriously amiss at the channels and that will be for OFCOM to decide.

We are all free to have our opinions but I personally cannot help thinking that something has gone seriously wrong at this company. These channels appear to have changed beyond all recognition in the last few years and we need to find out why.

I have.

Hence why I feel that the vast majority are simply the act of one, or a very small group of people who have an issue with Sit-Up. A good example is the fact hat they all (almost) resort to bid, and exclude PD, despite the fact that the channels are delivered on the same sale point.

I understand that many of you seem to prefer the 'old' style Bid-up, and therefore identify any deviation from this as negative and against TS principles. However, Sit-Up diversified its delivery options to match the viewing requirements of its core audience, and through this delivered record core sales in the years to 2011.

 

[deedee]

What right do I have? As much right as you to post on here.

I think I have described my view in the posts on this thread. Feel free to have a gander if you fancy.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about your rights as they are not in question, of course you have rights.
I asked who you think you are to insult, patronise and attack people?
I've looked at your posts and not one of them contains any valid or logical argument for the channels.

 

[nothingtodowithbid]

I don't believe I mentioned anything about your rights as they are not in question, of course you have rights.
I asked who you think you are to insult, patronise and attack people?
I've looked at your posts and not one of them contains any valid or logical argument for the channels.

See above deepee

 

[Wirral70]

I have.

Hence why I feel that the vast majority are simply the act of one, or a very small group of people who have an issue with Sit-Up. A good example is the fact hat they all (almost) resort to bid, and exclude PD, despite the fact that the channels are delivered on the same sale point.

I understand that many of you seem to prefer the 'old' style Bid-up, and therefore identify any deviation from this as negative and against TS principles. However, Sit-Up diversified its delivery options to match the viewing requirements of its core audience, and through this delivered record core sales in the years to 2011.

I have no idea how many people complained, I doubt Sit Up do either. I don't think it matters in the big picture though.

Regarding the majority of complaints relating to Bid couldn't it be that there are certain presenters on that channel who are the most likely to make misleading claims? I don't know for sure but it sounds quite plausible to me.

Because make misleading claims they obviously do, if they didn't it wouldn't matter how many people 'had it in' for Sit Up. If there are no grounds to complain the ASA would throw them out as baseless, simple as that. Clearly there are grounds to complain, quite a lot of grounds too.

I have to say that I have watched some sales on all of Sit Up's channels that, to be frank, have beggared belief. Personally I think a lot of the time the problems are caused by presenters that simply do not possess the skills to sell products on live TV in a fully compliant manner rather than a desire to deceive. But whatever the reason it's completely unacceptable.

And regarding us preferring the 'old style' of Bid, I think people are referring to honest, candid sales pitches and quality merchandise rather than a return to the 'Bid Up' formats.

 

[nothingtodowithbid]

I have no idea how many people complained, I doubt Sit Up do either. I don't think it matters in the big picture though.

Regarding the majority of complaints relating to Bid couldn't it be that there are certain presenters on that channel who are the most likely to make misleading claims? I don't know for sure but it sounds quite plausible to me.

Because make misleading claims they obviously do, if they didn't it wouldn't matter how many people 'had it in' for Sit Up. If there are no grounds to complain the ASA would throw them out as baseless, simple as that. Clearly there are ground to complain, quite a lot of grounds too.

I have to say that I have watched some sales on all of Sit Up's channels that, to be frank, beggared belief. personally I think a lot of the time the problems are caused by presenters that simply do not possess the skills to sell products on live TV rather than a desire to deceive. But whatever the reason it's completely unacceptable.

In a way I agree.

However, many product advertisements on TV receive upheld complaints, and the protocol is to remove the ad in its present form, which Sit-Up have consistently done. So compliance is met.

The issue the ASA have is that due to to relentless pestering by a small number they feel their responses are not sufficient to conclude the situation, and so they feel the need to refer to Ofcom in order to confirm that they have delt with each minor infringement sufficiently.

 

[Paul_s]

I have.

Hence why I feel that the vast majority are simply the act of one, or a very small group of people who have an issue with Sit-Up. A good example is the fact hat they all (almost) resort to bid, and exclude PD, despite the fact that the channels are delivered on the same sale point.

I understand that many of you seem to prefer the 'old' style Bid-up, and therefore identify any deviation from this as negative and against TS principles. However, Sit-Up diversified its delivery options to match the viewing requirements of its core audience, and through this delivered record core sales in the years to 2011.

Before you said "What right do I have? As much right as you to post on here."

and people have the same right to make a complaint to the regulator when something isn't right - be it an individual or group. In this case the ASA agreed and upheld the majority of the complaints - doesn't matter if it's Bid/Price Drop or Speed Auction.... - the bad apples are mainly on Bid though....

Sit-up management are totally arrogant saying that they are disappointed with the Ofcom enquiry - this goes to show exactly what the ASA have been dealing with when attempting to advise them... i.e. people who don't listen and have offered lip service to address certain issues.... where they have 'complied' they've changed their selling technique to even more dubious methods.

Some of the presenters on the other hand have taken a different turn and sorted themselves out - James Russell being one! and I applaud him for that. He used to be slated on here at one point.

The best/only way forward for them is to sack the current management team and certain presenters who fail at compliance (well they could always change, they've had plenty of opportunity over the past 12 months).

 

[deedee]

See above deepee

Yes, I've just seen your post above, I think we were both posting at the same time so it wasn't there when I wrote.
You still haven't argued coherently for the channels. We can give you examples of them misleading viewers, exaggerating and scaremongering, it's not just our opinion.
You've given nothing in their defence except they diversified their delivery options; well that doesn't really make them a more ethical, compliant and professional company. If you have evidence to the contrary then we'd love to hear it.
We're not out to get SitUp, we want them to improve and we give credit where it's due. Neither are we rude and insulting, my name is deedee.

 

[Wirral70]

In a way I agree.

However, many product advertisements on TV receive upheld complaints, and the protocol is to remove the ad in its present form, which Sit-Up have consistently done. So compliance is met.

The issue the ASA have is that due to to relentless pestering by a small number they feel their responses are not sufficient to conclude the situation, and so they feel the need to refer to Ofcom in order to confirm that they have delt with each minor infringement sufficiently.

But with respect they haven't. I'll give a very recent example as it's fresh in my mind.

This week a complaint was upheld because a presenter exaggerated the pedigree and history of the 'Oskar Emil' brand. As details were available publicly this week it's safe to say Sit Up have known about this for some time. However, just last Monday Peter Simon was doing exactly the same thing, claiming the brand has been around since 1973 and has a rich history (you can imagine the spiel) and it simply has not.

These watches might be great for all I know but it's the persistent exaggeration that annoys people, there is no need for it and one has to ask why do they do it?

 

[PJ.]

By the way nothingtodowithbid, what bought you to this forum if you really have nothing to do with bid? Have you posted here in another name?

 

[nothingtodowithbid]

But with respect they haven't. I'll give a very recent example as it's fresh in my mind.

This week a complaint was upheld because a presenter exaggerated the pedigree and history of the 'Oskar Emil' brand. As details were available publicly this week it's safe to say Sit Up have known about this for some time. However, just last Monday Peter Simon was doing exactly the same thing, claiming the brand has been around since 1973 and has a rich history (you can imagine the spiel) and it simply has not.

These watches might be great for all I know but it's the persistent exaggeration that annoys people, there is no need for it and one has to ask why do they do it?

OK, in this instance the presenter in question confused 73 with 93 which we argue is an acceptable mistake to make in the heat of a live presentation. The argument made is that this does not detract from the overall quality of the product. For example if a sales person stated that Rolex was founded in 1915, rather than 1905, the quality would still be the same for the product itself. However, understandably, the complaint is upheld. And I'm sure that Sit-Up acknowledge the discrepancy in delivery and therefore do not allow the advertisement to appear in the same form again.

 

[nothingtodowithbid]

By the way nothingtodowithbid, what bought you to this forum if you really have nothing to do with bid? Have you posted here in another name?

I have not posted here under any other name. I simply want, without prejudice, to put another point of view onto this forum.

 

[deedee]

In a way I agree.

However, many product advertisements on TV receive upheld complaints, and the protocol is to remove the ad in its present form, which Sit-Up have consistently done. So compliance is met.

The issue the ASA have is that due to to relentless pestering by a small number they feel their responses are not sufficient to conclude the situation, and so they feel the need to refer to Ofcom in order to confirm that they have delt with each minor infringement sufficiently.

More insensitivity. If you are on the receiving end of their lies, exaggerations or scaremongering it wouldn't feel like a minor infringement. This statement is yet another insult to the viewers of the channels.

 

[deedee]

I have not posted here under any other name. I simply want, without prejudice, to put another point of view onto this forum.

but clearly you are somethingtodowithbid so what connection do you have to the company?

 

[Paul_s]

nothingtodowithbid - Maybe you should be present at the Ofcom meeting with Sit-up TV acting as their defence. Rather you than me!!

 

[Wirral70]

OK, in this instance the presenter in question confused 73 with 93 which we argue is an acceptable mistake to make in the heat of a live presentation. The argument made is that this does not detract from the overall quality of the product. For example if a sales person stated that Rolex was founded in 1915, rather than 1905, the quality would still be the same for the product itself. However, understandably, the complaint is upheld. And I'm sure that Sit-Up acknowledge the discrepancy in delivery and therefore do not allow the advertisement to appear in the same form again.

You make a fair argument, it might have been a mistake. The problem we have here is that I think it's fair to say this particular presenter makes an awful lot of mistakes and it's noticeable that his mistakes tend to be 'in Bid's favour', for want of a better term. And it cannot be due to lack of experience can it?

On Friday night he claimed a gold necklace of 1.33 grams of 9ct gold was just short of 2 grams without once, not once, stating the actual gram weight. When they don't ever bother to place on screen what the gold gram weight is you can surely see the problem here?

And that is far from untypical, his sales of gold plated jewellery are often appalling. Maybe that might explain why so many complaints are in relation to sales on Bid? He dosen't appear on Price Drop or Bid Plus does he? (I don't think he does anyway).

By the way, I couldn't help but notice you said 'we argue is an acceptable mistake' :wink: