Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 Apr 13
11:20
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Adjudication on WHG Trading & WHG (International) Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/WHG-Trading-and-WHG-International-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_217414.aspx
WHG Trading & WHG (International) Ltd t/a William HIll
6/1 Waterport Place
Gibraltar
Date:
24 April 2013
Media:
Press general
Sector:
Leisure
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A12-217414
Ad
A press ad in the Racing Post, was headlined "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?". Below, the ad showed four boxes, each contained a big William Hill-branded football shirt and three smaller shirts branded with the names of other bookmakers. Each shirt had a number representing the number of matches in which that company had offered the best price. The first box was titled "BEST PRICE PREMIER LEAGUE" and text in the shirts stated "WILLIAM HILL 102; CORAL 27; BET365 0; BETFAIR 0". The other boxes gave statistics from other leagues in the same way. Large text below stated "You know where to come williamhill.com/bestprices". Small print at the bottom of the ad stated "Source txodds.com, online prices include 153 Premier League, 241 Championship, 239 League 1 and 242 League 2 games so far this season. Price comparison data compiled from the last odds available across the industry on match day. Prices correct as of 11th December 2012. ... See williamhill.com/bestprices for details. William Hill rules apply".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?" and the comparisons between the bookmakers in the ad were misleading and could be substantiated.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.13.33.333.7
Response
WHG Trading & WHG (International) Ltd (William Hill) said they were aware that the complainant had interpreted the ad to mean that the ad was offering comparisons just between the named bookmakers. They said this was not the case and that the numbers in the shirts had been drawn from a wider comparison between seven bookmakers. This data, which was referenced in the ad, was provided by a third-party source (TXOdds) who collated data concerning other operators within the industry and who were completely independent of William Hill. The ad carried, in large font, a clear reference to the website url which displayed this data and at which was given clear information as to how the comparison was created and which companies were involved. Further links within the web page took the reader to the raw data being used to compile that information.
William Hill said that published data was missing seven matches, for which they apologised, and explained that they had reviewed that omission with the data provider. They provided a revised table including those matches and argued that William Hill continued to stand out as best prices in the various categories which were referenced in the ad. In relation to the bookmakers that were referenced, they had taken all the large-scale operators from within the industry in the UK market, and certainly those which would be considered in the wider scale as direct competitors to William Hill. They argued that, due to the size of the industry they operated in, there would always be other gambling companies both on and offline who would offer gambling opportunities. It would be both unreasonable and impossible to include all of those in a comparison, considering the sheer volume of other operators and markets and also their accessibility by the consumer. As such they had taken the major operators from within the industry based on market share and net gambling revenue. They provided market share data in support of that which they said showed that those bookmakers that they had referenced were the largest within the UK while the ones that had been omitted were ultimately small scale operators which represented a small section of the gambling industry.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the complainant had interpreted the ad to mean that William Hill had carried out a comparison between only those bookmakers referenced in the ad. However, we considered that the claim "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?" in the context of the ad would be interpreted by most readers to mean that William Hill had conducted a whole-market comparison of the prices offered in each league and had offered the best price on the most occasions. We considered that the presence of the named bookmakers on the shirts in each league would be interpreted as those who had ranked after William Hill in that comparison.
We noted that both interpretations were incorrect and rather, William Hill had conducted a comparison between seven bookmakers only and not the whole market or just the named bookmakers. We also noted that the raw data was missing seven matches from the season. Although William Hill had argued that the comparison included all the top bookmakers, we noted that the comparison omitted SkyBet despite it ranking above other bookmakers that had been included, in terms of net gaming revenue.
We therefore considered the data did not show that William Hill had offered the best prices on the favourites during the season when compared with the whole market and concluded that the ad was misleading
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told William Hill to make sure they held appropriate substantiation before making whole-market comparisons and to ensure that the nature of the comparisons was clear in their ads.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/WHG-Trading-and-WHG-International-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_217414.aspx
WHG Trading & WHG (International) Ltd t/a William HIll
6/1 Waterport Place
Gibraltar
Date:
24 April 2013
Media:
Press general
Sector:
Leisure
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A12-217414
Ad
A press ad in the Racing Post, was headlined "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?". Below, the ad showed four boxes, each contained a big William Hill-branded football shirt and three smaller shirts branded with the names of other bookmakers. Each shirt had a number representing the number of matches in which that company had offered the best price. The first box was titled "BEST PRICE PREMIER LEAGUE" and text in the shirts stated "WILLIAM HILL 102; CORAL 27; BET365 0; BETFAIR 0". The other boxes gave statistics from other leagues in the same way. Large text below stated "You know where to come williamhill.com/bestprices". Small print at the bottom of the ad stated "Source txodds.com, online prices include 153 Premier League, 241 Championship, 239 League 1 and 242 League 2 games so far this season. Price comparison data compiled from the last odds available across the industry on match day. Prices correct as of 11th December 2012. ... See williamhill.com/bestprices for details. William Hill rules apply".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?" and the comparisons between the bookmakers in the ad were misleading and could be substantiated.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.13.33.333.7
Response
WHG Trading & WHG (International) Ltd (William Hill) said they were aware that the complainant had interpreted the ad to mean that the ad was offering comparisons just between the named bookmakers. They said this was not the case and that the numbers in the shirts had been drawn from a wider comparison between seven bookmakers. This data, which was referenced in the ad, was provided by a third-party source (TXOdds) who collated data concerning other operators within the industry and who were completely independent of William Hill. The ad carried, in large font, a clear reference to the website url which displayed this data and at which was given clear information as to how the comparison was created and which companies were involved. Further links within the web page took the reader to the raw data being used to compile that information.
William Hill said that published data was missing seven matches, for which they apologised, and explained that they had reviewed that omission with the data provider. They provided a revised table including those matches and argued that William Hill continued to stand out as best prices in the various categories which were referenced in the ad. In relation to the bookmakers that were referenced, they had taken all the large-scale operators from within the industry in the UK market, and certainly those which would be considered in the wider scale as direct competitors to William Hill. They argued that, due to the size of the industry they operated in, there would always be other gambling companies both on and offline who would offer gambling opportunities. It would be both unreasonable and impossible to include all of those in a comparison, considering the sheer volume of other operators and markets and also their accessibility by the consumer. As such they had taken the major operators from within the industry based on market share and net gambling revenue. They provided market share data in support of that which they said showed that those bookmakers that they had referenced were the largest within the UK while the ones that had been omitted were ultimately small scale operators which represented a small section of the gambling industry.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the complainant had interpreted the ad to mean that William Hill had carried out a comparison between only those bookmakers referenced in the ad. However, we considered that the claim "WHO'S BEEN THE BEST PRICE ON THE FAVOURITES SO FAR THIS SEASON?" in the context of the ad would be interpreted by most readers to mean that William Hill had conducted a whole-market comparison of the prices offered in each league and had offered the best price on the most occasions. We considered that the presence of the named bookmakers on the shirts in each league would be interpreted as those who had ranked after William Hill in that comparison.
We noted that both interpretations were incorrect and rather, William Hill had conducted a comparison between seven bookmakers only and not the whole market or just the named bookmakers. We also noted that the raw data was missing seven matches from the season. Although William Hill had argued that the comparison included all the top bookmakers, we noted that the comparison omitted SkyBet despite it ranking above other bookmakers that had been included, in terms of net gaming revenue.
We therefore considered the data did not show that William Hill had offered the best prices on the favourites during the season when compared with the whole market and concluded that the ad was misleading
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told William Hill to make sure they held appropriate substantiation before making whole-market comparisons and to ensure that the nature of the comparisons was clear in their ads.
Show More
They have been misleading the public also on odds checker and telling absolute lies
and this proves that you simply cant trust High street bookmakers as they will lie,decieve
and take advantage of problem gamblers hooked on FOBTs till the cows come home or they
are forced into touch via court rulings and legislation.
very poor show!
and this proves that you simply cant trust High street bookmakers as they will lie,decieve
and take advantage of problem gamblers hooked on FOBTs till the cows come home or they
are forced into touch via court rulings and legislation.
very poor show!
betfair NONE . they must be miss leading in a big way eh fanatic.
Betfair are light years ahead of the competition and they know it dearly...
Well done to the ASA, about time these bookmakers got pulled up for misleading adverts
The fantasist who is the biggest liar on the forum has the cheek to make a comment on the truth.
which one of your multiple personalities wrote it, fantasist.
which one of your multiple personalities wrote it, fantasist.
anyone with an average I.Q. can work out that Betfair prices are the best and
the In-running products are blue chip betting technology, its just a shame
the public don't get to know the truth or discover Betfair above all the rubbish advertising
from lesser companies , but the tide is turning...
the In-running products are blue chip betting technology, its just a shame
the public don't get to know the truth or discover Betfair above all the rubbish advertising
from lesser companies , but the tide is turning...
You are grey Gandalf and I am in the pink, thus I will learn faster
You will never learn, your delusions will confine you to your imaginary world, where you start a new thread everyday, in order to try and conceal your massive losses, then lie and throw up your deluded smokescreens. Keep taking your meds, imagine how bald you would be if you did not, as unmedicated you would be tearing your hair out as you pace up and down in utter despair at the hopelessness of your actual reality.
or discover Betfair above all the rubbish advertising from lesser companies
by John Reynolds, 17 April 2013,
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk
Betfair has been banned from running a TV ad after the advertising watchdog ruled it made misleading claims about its betting odds.
The ad, created by Big Al’s Creative Emporium, began with on-screen text and a voiceover that said "Is your bookie giving you value?"
The voiceover continued: "On all Channel 4 live races in September, Betfair were better priced than William Hill 30 minutes before the start of each race on 506 of the 640 runners. Better than Paddy Power on 549, and better than Betfred on 543. Now that’s value. Before you bet today, check the prices on Betfair."
The text that appeared at the bottom of the screen throughout the ad stated: "Exchange prices only. 5% commission has been deducted from Betfair prices. Other charges may apply. For verification see betchecker.betfair.com".
This ad was challenged about whether the claim was misleading, as the complainant understood that the three bookmakers offered a "Best Odds Guarantee", which meant their customers would receive whichever was better, the price when they placed their bet, or the starting price.
In its defence, Betfair said the comparisons in the ad was of the best price that all customers would definitely be offered by them and the three other bookmakers online, 30 minutes before the start of each race, and was therefore an objective comparison to identical products.
Betfair admitted that it would not have produced a comparison on prices 10 or 15 minutes before the races started, as around 10 to 15 minutes before the start of all horse races, all the prices converged and prices moved in unison.
In its ruling, the Advertising Standard Authority noted the ad clearly stated the comparison was made 30 minutes before each race began and, furthermore, the website to which viewers were directed provided verification of the data used in the comparison, which took Betfair’s 5% commission charge into account.
However, the ASA ruled that the TV ad and the website should be banned, as the prices Betfair quoted were of limited relevance in relation to other bookmakers, which could pay out at better odds than those used in the comparison
by John Reynolds, 17 April 2013,
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk
Betfair has been banned from running a TV ad after the advertising watchdog ruled it made misleading claims about its betting odds.
The ad, created by Big Al’s Creative Emporium, began with on-screen text and a voiceover that said "Is your bookie giving you value?"
The voiceover continued: "On all Channel 4 live races in September, Betfair were better priced than William Hill 30 minutes before the start of each race on 506 of the 640 runners. Better than Paddy Power on 549, and better than Betfred on 543. Now that’s value. Before you bet today, check the prices on Betfair."
The text that appeared at the bottom of the screen throughout the ad stated: "Exchange prices only. 5% commission has been deducted from Betfair prices. Other charges may apply. For verification see betchecker.betfair.com".
This ad was challenged about whether the claim was misleading, as the complainant understood that the three bookmakers offered a "Best Odds Guarantee", which meant their customers would receive whichever was better, the price when they placed their bet, or the starting price.
In its defence, Betfair said the comparisons in the ad was of the best price that all customers would definitely be offered by them and the three other bookmakers online, 30 minutes before the start of each race, and was therefore an objective comparison to identical products.
Betfair admitted that it would not have produced a comparison on prices 10 or 15 minutes before the races started, as around 10 to 15 minutes before the start of all horse races, all the prices converged and prices moved in unison.
In its ruling, the Advertising Standard Authority noted the ad clearly stated the comparison was made 30 minutes before each race began and, furthermore, the website to which viewers were directed provided verification of the data used in the comparison, which took Betfair’s 5% commission charge into account.
However, the ASA ruled that the TV ad and the website should be banned, as the prices Betfair quoted were of limited relevance in relation to other bookmakers, which could pay out at better odds than those used in the comparison
Galdalfthegrey and Dr Gonzo are living testimonies to the fact that
"Smurfs can surf"
"Smurfs can surf"
I can't even begin to work out what that means.
Have you not taken your pills this morning?
Have you not taken your pills this morning?
With the combined % online bookmakers now bet to, it's often possible to get a better price with the online bookmakers on football bets. You often get the same price as is shown on Betfair, but with no commission to pay on any winnings.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539