Sit-Up Ltd Referred To Ofcom By The ASA

Mulligan1

Sit-Up Ltd, the company who operate three TV Shopping Channels (Bid, Price-Drop and Bid Plus) have been referred to Ofcom by the Advertising Standards Authority for consideration of statutory sanctions following repeated breaches of the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising. Ofcom has confirmed that it has accepted the referral.

It appears they have had a whopping 27 complaints Upheld since January 2012, mostly due to misleading pricing claims and misleading product descriptions.

I don't think I can provide a link but there is more information available on the ASA's website.

arcon5

I don't know the full details of the case but 27 complaints sounds very low on the face of it. Must be more to it though.

MothballsWallet

That's 27 complaints upheld, there may have been many more made but not upheld.

Perhaps the ASA have received so many complaints about this company that they have to refer them to OFCOM (who will do little to nothing of value anyway, imo).

arcon5

MothballsWallet wrote: »

That's 27 complaints upheld, there may have been many more made but not upheld.

Perhaps the ASA have received so many complaints about this company that they have to refer them to OFCOM (who will do little to nothing of value anyway, imo).

What exactly does 'upheld' mean? If dozens have not been upheld, does this mean the complaints carry no substance or is this well off the mark?

MothballsWallet

arcon5 wrote: »

What exactly does 'upheld' mean? If dozens have not been upheld, does this mean the complaints carry no substance or is this well off the mark?

What's worse is that the ASA can either:

• Partially uphold a complaint (they agree with some parts of the complaint but not others)
• Fully uphold a complaint (they agree with all of it)
• Find no evidence to support a complaint

Mulligan1

27 Upheld complaints in less than 18 months is an absolutely staggering amount. It's more than all the other shopping channels put together, and some.

To put it in perspective by far the largest TV retalier (QVC) didn't have a single complaint Upheld in the same period although they had one complaint informally resolved. The second largest (Ideal Shopping) didn't have any Upheld complaints either.

A further bit of perspective, The biggest retailer of them all (Tesco) didn't have any complaints Upheld in the same period about their multitude of adverts either. I think that gives a clue as to the gravity of the situation with this company!

fozmcfc

It doesn't come as a surprise, I used to enjoy watching these channels for an hour or so, when bored for a laugh.

Numerous times, the presenters use to oversell the benefits of products, particularly when it came to electronics. For an example, when selling a mobile, telling people you've no need for a camera, because this has one built in. Yes it does, but at 0.3mp, you'd be better off with a budget film camera from the 80's.

Jewelley another item where plated gold/silver and unheard of stones, being pushed as amazing value as if they are as good as proper gold etc...

They used to do guide prices from items and many times, the price was ridiculously high.

It's also highly questionable when the presenter acted, shocked, as if they are amazed at the price an item is being offered at. Or acts as if they are trying to talk to someone off stage, asking if a mistake has been made and then supposidely being caught on camera doing it and looking sheepish.

System

we last bought from bid tv about 18 months ago but in the last 6 months we have had numerous calls from them even though we told them not to ring, luckily we are moving soon and have to have a new tele number !

munchpot

The ASA has no powers other than banning the ads from future use (which in the case of Live TV teleshopping doesn't carry much weight)
They rely on the negative publicity to force companies to change their ways. They publish their adjudications every Tuesday which is why you'll usually see an upheld advert complaint mentioned on Watchdog every Wednesday.

As a broadcaster Sit Up Ltd have licences issued by Ofcom. The ASA referring them to Ofcom means they could
1 - Do nothing
2 - Fine them
3 - Revoke their licence.

Ofcom have been quite aggressive in recent months with repeat offenders in the teleshopping / adult chat channels (they now both fall under advertising) and have fined many and revoked a few licences.

The referral itself should be a warning to Sit Up at the very least

paddyrg

fozmcfc wrote: »

Jewelley another item where plated gold/silver and unheard of stones, being pushed as amazing value as if they are as good as proper gold etc...

Bunkumulite bracelets and rare snakeoilanite necklaces...

Mulligan1

munchpot wrote: »

The ASA has no powers other than banning the ads from future use (which in the case of Live TV teleshopping doesn't carry much weight)
They rely on the negative publicity to force companies to change their ways. They publish their adjudications every Tuesday which is why you'll usually see an upheld advert complaint mentioned on Watchdog every Wednesday.

As a broadcaster Sit Up Ltd have licences issued by Ofcom. The ASA referring them to Ofcom means they could
1 - Do nothing
2 - Fine them
3 - Revoke their licence.

Ofcom have been quite aggressive in recent months with repeat offenders in the teleshopping / adult chat channels (they now both fall under advertising) and have fined many and revoked a few licences.

The referral itself should be a warning to Sit Up at the very least

They have had even more complaints upheld against them this week :eek: