GetChip - false advertising?

masonic

Yes

Anyone who put money into this account on the basis of that claim and later discovered the average returns were significantly worse than Premium Bonds would have a very strong complaint in my view. It seems a clear breach of FCA regulations around financial promotions not being misleading.

Linton

Johnjdc said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Malthusian said:

Yes, it's false advertising. To continue the "unit price" comparison, it's like saying that your chicken is twice as cheap as Sainsbury's and displaying a packet of Sainsbury's chicken which is twice the size of yours.
A competent regulator looks through this kind of sophistry and would base their ruling on what a consumer would most likely believe after reading the advert. In this case the consumer is clearly meant to think that they will win 4 times as much with Chip, which is false.

Is it the same hypothetical consumer who is purchasing chicken the same consumer who is purchasing a financial product? 

I would assert that comparing the purchase of sugar and chickens (and the advertising of the pricing of these products) is not comparable to the purchase of a chance of winning a prize in a draw.

I wish to win a prize. For a single entry, which of Chip or Premium Bonds gives me the greater chance of winning it?

(I know about minimum holdings of PBs and it's not relevant). 

Why is "for a single entry" relevant if the cost of that entry isn't the same?

That's nothing to do with minimum holdings, it's to do with how the tickets are split.

If you buy £1000 worth of PBs and £1000 of Chip savings, the answer to which gives you the greater chance is: PBs.

If you buy £10000 of Chip savings and £1000 of PBs, the answer is Chip.

The question is, would a consumer interpret the advert as meaning "for the same amount of savings".

I think yes they almost certainly would, in which case it's false advertising.

It is for a single entry because that it is what Chip is saying.   It is not a very meaningful or useful thing to say but how much advertising is meaningful and useful?

Malthusian

Linton said:

It is for a single entry because that it is what Chip is saying.   It is not a very meaningful or useful thing to say but how much advertising is meaningful and useful?

All advertising which presents financial statistics (like "4x more likely to win") should be meaningful and useful. If it's not, it's misleading.
If the advert said "Get a chip saver account and feel umami" or "Chip: the savings account for human people" or the usual vacuous nonsense that adverts consist of (even financial ones), I wouldn't have any issue.

Johnjdc

Yes

Linton said:

Johnjdc said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Malthusian said:

Yes, it's false advertising. To continue the "unit price" comparison, it's like saying that your chicken is twice as cheap as Sainsbury's and displaying a packet of Sainsbury's chicken which is twice the size of yours.
A competent regulator looks through this kind of sophistry and would base their ruling on what a consumer would most likely believe after reading the advert. In this case the consumer is clearly meant to think that they will win 4 times as much with Chip, which is false.

Is it the same hypothetical consumer who is purchasing chicken the same consumer who is purchasing a financial product? 

I would assert that comparing the purchase of sugar and chickens (and the advertising of the pricing of these products) is not comparable to the purchase of a chance of winning a prize in a draw.

I wish to win a prize. For a single entry, which of Chip or Premium Bonds gives me the greater chance of winning it?

(I know about minimum holdings of PBs and it's not relevant). 

Why is "for a single entry" relevant if the cost of that entry isn't the same?

That's nothing to do with minimum holdings, it's to do with how the tickets are split.

If you buy £1000 worth of PBs and £1000 of Chip savings, the answer to which gives you the greater chance is: PBs.

If you buy £10000 of Chip savings and £1000 of PBs, the answer is Chip.

The question is, would a consumer interpret the advert as meaning "for the same amount of savings".

I think yes they almost certainly would, in which case it's false advertising.

It is for a single entry because that it is what Chip is saying.   It is not a very meaningful or useful thing to say but how much advertising is meaningful and useful?

Let's try an analogy.

"OUR CIGARETTES ARE TEN TIMES LESS LIKELY TO GIVE YOU CANCER!!"

But it turns out to be comparing two of their cigarettes to a whole pack of a competing brand.

False advertising?

Linton

Malthusian said:

Linton said:

It is for a single entry because that it is what Chip is saying.   It is not a very meaningful or useful thing to say but how much advertising is meaningful and useful?

All advertising which presents financial statistics (like "4x more likely to win") should be meaningful and useful. If it's not, it's misleading.
If the advert said "Get a chip saver account and feel umami" or "Chip: the savings account for human people" or the usual vacuous nonsense that adverts consist of (even financial ones), I wouldn't have any issue.

I agree with you that the advert could easily be misunderstood and so is not appropriate.  My point was the OP suggested that the statement was false perhaps for some mathematical or statistical reason which it isnt.  Pedantry perhaps.

flaneurs_lobster

No

Linton said:

Malthusian said:

Linton said:

It is for a single entry because that it is what Chip is saying.   It is not a very meaningful or useful thing to say but how much advertising is meaningful and useful?

All advertising which presents financial statistics (like "4x more likely to win") should be meaningful and useful. If it's not, it's misleading.
If the advert said "Get a chip saver account and feel umami" or "Chip: the savings account for human people" or the usual vacuous nonsense that adverts consist of (even financial ones), I wouldn't have any issue.

I agree with you that the advert could easily be misunderstood and so is not appropriate.  My point was the OP suggested that the statement was false perhaps for some mathematical or statistical reason which it isnt.  Pedantry perhaps.

Exactly the point. The advert may be (probably is) misleading but it is not false. Claiming that "Red Bull gives you wings" is false advertising. 

Malthusian

Linton said:

I agree with you that the advert could easily be misunderstood and so is not appropriate.  My point was the OP suggested that the statement was false perhaps for some mathematical or statistical reason which it isnt.  Pedantry perhaps.

It is false if you read the sentence in the context of what the average consumer is likely to believe, and what Chip are hoping they will believe, which is "You'll win 4x as much with Chip". This is also the context in which regulators assess adverts. (Or they certainly should; the FCA would, I'm less sure about the ASA.)
"They wouldn't let them print it if it wasn't true!"

Johnjdc said:

But it turns out to be comparing two of their cigarettes to a whole pack of a competing brand.

False advertising?

You'd be on safer ground with an advert like this:


Remember kids, this advertising was absolutely true - Camels ran "nationwide surveys" and it is exceedingly unlikely that they lied about the results. (Any idiot could produce a genuine survey that gave the desired result.) 
The text is very clear that they aren't claiming that you won't get cancer if you smoke Camels, or even that it is less likely. It just says, truthfully, that more doctors smoke Camels. Therefore, this was not false advertising. Caveat emptor!

eskbanker

Given the state of the NHS and the ongoing pay debate, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that more doctors are taking up smoking!

I'm still missing these long-ceased adverts with clearly fake claims

DireEmblem

Yes

Linton said:

My point was the OP suggested that the statement was false perhaps for some mathematical or statistical reason which it isnt.  Pedantry perhaps.

It has, hopefully unintentionally left out key elements as below.

With each entry(£10), you have a 1 in 6056 chance of winning, compared to the odds of premium bonds which are at 1 in 24,473 (for each £1 entry).

It could easily be misunderstood and hence misleading in terms of a fair comparison.  To compare the odds of winning competition A vs B, you need to consider the entry requirements and compare on an equitable basis.

Bridlington1

How's this for honesty:

: