Jessops.com false advertising Google adwords

uktim29

The_Affs wrote: »

Again, this is true if you believe it is a mistake. A falsehood by definition is an untrue statement, ie a lie. The real question here is who regulates this form of advertising? We often see army ads pulled for supposedly glamourising violence. Junk food ads are no longer shown pre-watershed. Credit product advertising is governed by strict FSA regs. So how can this particular example be allowed to happen with no repercussion?

So if your right if I type in any Jessops product into Google then I should see the price displayed being £70 less than it actually is? For every item.

As I've said, because anyone could make it.

Also there is one major point with clicking an ad for £229 to find it's £299 and why this isn't governed by strict regulations..............You've not lost a b1oody thing!

The_Affs

uktim29 wrote: »

So if your right if I type in any Jessops product into Google then I should see the price displayed being £70 less than it actually is? For every item.

As I've said, because anyone could make it.

Also there is one major point with clicking an ad for £229 to find it's £299 and why this isn't governed by strict regulations..............You've not lost a b1oody thing!

A child hasn't lost anything by watching a McDonalds ad on TV at 5pm but those adverts are still pulled from our screens. In an age where the "power" of advertising is apparently so strong that it can turn people obese in an instant, it is a huge surprise that there is no regulation on pay per click advertising other than a bit of self-regulation by Google on brand name bidding.

And no, I am not suggesting that every Jessop's PPC ad would be £70 cheaper - I am suggesting that they have either inadvertently or deliberately put this one ad online at the incorrect price.

uktim29

The_Affs wrote: »

A child hasn't lost anything by watching a McDonalds ad on TV at 5pm but those adverts are still pulled from our screens.

Thats because they can get fat instead!

The_Affs wrote: »

they have either inadvertently or deliberately put this one ad online at the incorrect price.

So if it's inadvertently or deliberately then it's a lie or not a lie or a mistake or a lie?

So does this mean were finally getting to the stage where perhaps it's not a lie but a mistake? Which is what I was pointing out anyway.

By the way. If you click an ad that says £229 but then find out it's £299 you have lost anything and you won't get fat either!

taxiphil

I see the usual armchair laywers are shouting very loud on this thread, but considering they know so much, they've done a spectacular job of missing the obvious... it's a criminal offence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for a trader to make misleading price indications. If Jessops think they could convince a court it was a honest mistake, then jolly good luck to them, but many retailers have tried on this defence and failed. BTW, it's Trading Standards not the ASA who enforce the Consumer Protection Act.

From a business and legal point of view, Jessops would be better off honouring the £229 price to the OP, taking the £70 loss on the chin, and ensuring the mistake is not repeated in future - thus saving themselves from some pretty large fines and a criminal record.

RadoJo

adamtg wrote: »

I take your point, but there is a high chance this is them bidding on this phrase, also looking at the URL it has reference to http://www.affilibid.com/ which in turn brings up an online marketing agency with Jessops.com as a client
http://www.ck-net.com/ppc/. The way it was changed so quickly also makes me think it is them directly and not an affiliate.

As I have said before, seeing the reaction I have had to this on here and from Jessops. I am not holding much hope I will get anything, but thought it was worth trying.

Thanks for all your comments, at least I know not to bother wasting my time again on something like this.

Just to add something - your opening paragraph seems to contradict itself! The fact that you have identified that Jessops are not only using an affiliate but a Pay-per-click ad agency as well - this means that they could be up to three steps away from the actual person who modifies the ads. You say that the quick response to your complaint suggests that it is Jessops themselves who are managing the account, but this is almost certainly not the case given that they are paying someone else to do it.

I am not sure what more you wanted - you pointed out to them that they had a misprice in an ad, and they changed it to reflect the correct price. Surely this is what you wanted when you contacted the ASA as they can't force a comapny to sell an item for any given price, just investigate tehir advertising.

uktim29

But Phil, something I've pointed out which you've missed Jessops may well not have written the ad. We also all know, maybe this is the armchair laywer in me that that consumer protection act section compared to the amount of miss-prices in the world/.Uk is hardly every used. You say many but I seems to remember once it was a Tescos in Cornwall and you also found a case about a Somerfiled in Wales. The latter being due to the fact they had hunderds of incorrect prices and when Trading Standards came back a week later they hadn't done anything about it.

It seems to me thet even Trading Standards think that section of the consumer protection act is a bit nanny state. They even say on their sites they are unlikely to take any action with miss-prices. You know this because it's not the first time we've had this conversation.

taxiphil

I agree, Tim, that Trading Standards are highly unlikely to act on it, but not for the reason you state. It's not because they think it's "too nanny state" - it's an act of parliament and they have no right to decide whether it's a good law or not! It's because they don't have the resources to go after everyone. But from time to time they do enforce this law to make examples of retailers. Of course there is enormous regional variation, as each individual TS dept is quite small and has different priorities.

I'm not sure it's a let-off purely because Jessops didn't write the ad. Using a third party to do their Google ads is only the equivalent of any business putting an advertising agency in charge of their TV, newspaper and billboard ads. It's not a mitigation to try and blame it on the agent - the retailer is still liable for any misrepresentation.

You look at every single adjudication on the ASA website and I bet 95% of those ads were written or created by an agent acting on behalf of the retailer - it doesn't stop the retailer being responsible when the sh*t hits the fan.

adamtg

RadoJo wrote: »

Just to add something - your opening paragraph seems to contradict itself! The fact that you have identified that Jessops are not only using an affiliate but a Pay-per-click ad agency as well - this means that they could be up to three steps away from the actual person who modifies the ads. You say that the quick response to your complaint suggests that it is Jessops themselves who are managing the account, but this is almost certainly not the case given that they are paying someone else to do it.

I am not sure what more you wanted - you pointed out to them that they had a misprice in an ad, and they changed it to reflect the correct price. Surely this is what you wanted when you contacted the ASA as they can't force a comapny to sell an item for any given price, just investigate tehir advertising.

They do use an agency, most large companies will. If our search agency made an error I would be on the phone to them instantly, that is what a good client agency relationship is about.

As Taxiphil has said they are still responsible. If we (the company I work for) did this we would honour the customer the said product or service for the price they saw it at. Whilst this may not be correct from a legal point of view, it is good customer service and creates a positive experience for the customer. They then will come back to the company again (hopefully).

I am happy to agree to disagree, everyone has their own opinion on adwords, agencies and affiliates.
At the end of the day I thought it was worth an attempt to obtain a camera at a good price. I am enjoying the debate anyway. Keep it up

The_Affs

taxiphil wrote: »

I agree, Tim, that Trading Standards are highly unlikely to act on it, but not for the reason you state. It's not because they think it's "too nanny state" - it's an act of parliament and they have no right to decide whether it's a good law or not! It's because they don't have the resources to go after everyone. But from time to time they do enforce this law to make examples of retailers. Of course there is enormous regional variation, as each individual TS dept is quite small and has different priorities.

I'm not sure it's a let-off purely because Jessops didn't write the ad. Using a third party to do their Google ads is only the equivalent of any business putting an advertising agency in charge of their TV, newspaper and billboard ads. It's not a mitigation to try and blame it on the agent - the retailer is still liable for any misrepresentation.

You look at every single adjudication on the ASA website and I bet 95% of those ads were written or created by an agent acting on behalf of the retailer - it doesn't stop the retailer being responsible when the sh*t hits the fan.

Looks like the boy Taxi is the voice of reason in all this. Throughout this case I have been incredulous that Jessops could escape with no further action, considering the ridiculous rules and regs placed on many other firms for harmless adverts.

I am beginning to think that uktim might be the actual third party affiliate responsible for creating the Jessops mistake/lie/falsehood/fib/error due to the amount of spelling mistakes/lies/falsehoods/fibs/errors he has made in this thread alone!!!

That's if there was an affiliate involved. Or if there wasn't not an affiliate involved. Christ I'm confused now...

uktim29

Phil, we've had this conversation before as well. Trading Standards do feel sorry for retailers with the amount of red tape and nanny state rules. I know this from previously working in retail and having this conversation with TS officers. So it's not actually a case of they just don't have time to take everyone to court. They actually think it really is pointless. I know you'll go on about having to take my word for it but theres not much I can do about that!

The_Affs wrote: »

amount of spelling mistakes/lies/falsehoods/fibs/errors he has made in this thread alone!!!

Such as?

Spelling mistakes, get a life!!!!