Ad description
Two press ads for William Hill promoted odds for the Cheltenham Gold Cup and the Aintree Hurdle:
a. The ad appeared in the Racing Post on 15 March 2013. Headline text stated "6/1 SIR DES CHAMPS TO WIN THE CHELTENHAM GOLD CUP". Those odds were repeated in the full list of runners for the race which appeared below the headline. A footnote to the list stated "... Prices subject to fluctuation ..." and footnote text at the bottom of the ad stated "... Prices correct at 5.00pm yesterday ...".
b. The ad appeared in the Daily Mirror on 4 April 2013. Headline text stated "4/1 THE NEW ONE TO WIN THE JOHN SMITH'S AINTREE HURDLE". Those odds were repeated in the full list of runners for the race which appeared below the headline. A footnote to the list stated "... Prices subject to fluctuation ..." and footnote text at the bottom of the ad stated "... Price correct at 5.00pm yesterday".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims "6/1 SIR DES CHAMPS TO WIN THE CHELTENHAM GOLD CUP" and "4/1 THE NEW ONE TO WIN THE JOHN SMITH'S AINTREE HURDLE" were misleading and could be substantiated, because he understood that the quoted odds were only available for a very limited time.
Response
WHG Trading & WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online (William Hill) said both ads clearly stated, directly below the prices being advertised, that "Prices are subject to fluctuation" to ensure consumers were fully aware that the prices shown could alter. They also highlighted that footnote text alerted consumers to the fact that the promoted odds had been correct and effective from 5.00 pm the night before. They explained that once available at 5.00 pm, on some occasions, promoted odds were left overnight with the majority of business taking place first thing in the morning before the race commenced.
They stated that when they, or another bookmaker, created a betting market the odds that were offered would inevitably change due to the fact the market would be made available to consumers and money would be placed on the various selections and prices. They said that subsequently affected the liabilities that were carried on each selection and the overall market, and therefore the prices offered would be altered accordingly. They also explained that markets and the odds offered on the individual runners might also be affected by events outside their control, such as non-runners or the alteration of courses, and therefore they would be forced to revise the whole market's odds. They highlighted that, whenever they publicised particular markets, they made an additional effort to maintain prices for a longer period of time wherever possible to ensure that as many customers could place bets at the advertised odds. They also highlighted that the ads appeared in publications specifically targeted at knowledgeable and "betting-savvy" consumers, who would understand that the promoted prices could not be guaranteed due to changing markets.
William Hill said both odds had been available on the dates the ads appeared. They said the odds of 6/1, promoted in ad (a), were made publicly available at 08:30:03 on 15 May, but that the price was then altered following the announcement of a non-runner in the event at 08:55:30. They said the withdrawal was out of their control, which meant they were forced to alter their prices. Regardless of that, they asserted that they had maintained the price of 6/1 for 25 minutes and took a total of 4,113 bets from their customers on Sir Des Champs at that price.
In relation to ad (b), they said the price was made publicly available at the odds of 4/1 at 08:29:23 on 4 April and was maintained until 09:07:17 when, due to the number of customers who had placed bets at that that price, they were forced to reduce the price offered to 3/1.They highlighted that the price had therefore been available for 38 minutes and they had taken a total of 2,617 bets from their customers on The New One at the price of 4/1.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that markets and the odds available varied depending on a number of factors including the number of bets placed and the withdrawal of particular runners and we considered that most consumers would be aware of those factors. We considered, however, that although consumers would be aware that odds could change because of factors beyond a bookmaker's control, such as withdrawals, changes to runners, changes to running conditions, changes in venues and changes to riders, if odds had been specifically promoted in a press ad, and therefore could not be updated to reflect changes to the market, and no changes to a race or its line-up had occurred, they would expect those odds to be available on the day they were published, even if only for a limited time.
We noted that both the advertised odds had been available for a limited period and that a number of consumers had been able to take advantage of the offer. We considered, however, that although highlighting to consumers that "Prices are subject to fluctuation", and "Price correct at 5.00 pm yesterday", neither ad stated when the odds would be available to consumers. We therefore considered that a number of consumers could read the ad at a variety of times in the morning and believe that if they visited William Hill online or a William Hill shop they would be able to secure those odds, only to be disappointed. We also noted William Hill's comment that prices were correct from 5.00 pm the day before, and that they might be left available overnight. We therefore considered that it could be possible for a promoted odd to be unavailable on the day a press ad promoting it appeared, because of consumers placing bets overnight rather than an unforeseen event, such as a withdrawal.
Because we considered that most consumers reading the ads would not understand when the promoted odds would be, or had been, available, and William Hill could not guarantee that the promoted odds would be available on the day the ad appeared due to individuals placing bets on the market the preceding evening, we concluded that the ads were misleading and in breach of the Code.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) and 3.27 3.27 Marketers must make a reasonable estimate of demand for advertised products. (Availability).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form.
