Background
Summary of Council decision:
Eight issues were investigated, of which four were Upheld and four Not upheld.
Ad description
A press ad for a betting tipster service stated "ISIRIS treats betting as a serious investment opportunity. So when you join ISIRIS do not expect a bet every day. We only give out 2 to 3 bets per week on average. ISIRIS members expect a constant high level of success and so we only give out bets if we consider them a near certainty. Here are the results from the past 12-weeks (showing an 86% strike rate win and ew from just 28 bets): Just 28 main account bets, including: 24 WINNERS (or EW Placed) ... £14,505 PROFIT". Further text stated "ISIRIS members expect to make over £100 average profit every day of the week, during every week of every year of their membership". Smaller text at the very bottom of the ad stated "All claims at advertised prices. Total staked in this period: £21, 600. These profits were achieved with an initial betting bank = £1, 000".
Issue
Lord David Lipsey, vice-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming and member of the Starting price Regulatory Commission, acting in a personal capacity, challenged whether:
1. the claims "ISIRIS treats betting as a serious investment opportunity" and "ISIRIS members expect to make over £100 average profit every day of the week, during every week of every year of their membership" misleadingly implied that Isiris' forecasts were very likely or certain to win;
2. the claim "and many people have been members for over 15 years" could be substantiated;
3. the claim "86% strike rate" was misleading because he understood that "strike" might include a placed horse (rather than a win) which could mean that the bet would lose money if backed each way;
4. the bank and total stake required to achieve the profit stated were sufficiently prominent;
5. the profit figure for the 12-week period could be substantiated and whether all members had been sent tips showing this profit;
6. the testimonials were genuine;
7. the claim "On current achievement levels of over £5k/month profit, that could be over £85,000 profit in the next 17 months to £100/pt stakes" was misleading because it made a claim about future profits based on a recent successful 12-week period; and
8. the claim "On current achievement levels of over £5k/month profit, that could be over £85,000 profit in the next 17 months to £100/pt stakes" was misleading because it implied that these returns could be achieved with £100 bets.
Response
1. Isiris Racing Services (Isiris) stated that the claims, "ISIRIS treats betting as a serious investment opportunity" and "ISIRIS members expect to make over £100 average profit every day of the week, during every week of every year of their membership" were statements of fact. They maintained that they treated betting seriously and were not interested in betting just for fun. They said they charged high fees and offered a professional service with the intention that their clients made a profit on their investment. They said they averaged over £100 of profit per day and their clients had an expectation that these results would continue.
Isiris said they did not promise that these results would continue and upon enrolment prospective members signed a form that made it clear that Isiris did not guarantee a profit.
2. Isiris provided the names and addresses of some of their members who had been with them for over 15 years. They also confirmed how many of their members had been with them for 15 years or more.
3. Isiris said the ad made it clear that the 86% strike rate was based on wins and each way bets. They pointed out that this claim was not made in isolation but within the context of the profit figure and other information contained in the ad. They did not believe that the claim was misleading.
4. Isiris said the total amount staked and the bank was clearly visible and legible in the ad, in line with industry standard.
5. Isiris said they proofed their tips with the Racing Post. They submitted a summary of their forecasts for the 12-week period referred to in the ad. The Racing Post confirmed these forecasts matched the proofing documents they held for Isiris and also submitted the full proofing documentation. Isiris added that all their members received the same tips.
6. Isiris submitted original copies of the testimonials including the names and contact details of the people providing them.
7. & 8. Isiris maintained that the ad contained no claims or promises concerning future profits. They said it was clear from the ad that this claim was a factual statement of what profits could be generated if current trends continued into the following 17 months. They said the ad did not claim the trend would continue but provided a mathematically accurate illustration of what the profits would look like if it did. They said the total stakes and total number of bets for the 12-week example were clearly stated in the ad therefore readers could easily work out the amount staked per bet.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad stated "ISIRIS treats betting as a serious investment opportunity," and "ISIRIS members expect a constant high level of success and so we only give out bets if we consider them a near certainty". We noted Isiris said these were statements of fact and that new members had to sign an enrolment form acknowledging that no profit was guaranteed.
However, we also noted that the CAP Help Note on 'Marketing for betting tipster services' stated, "Marketers should not claim that their forecasts are very likely or certain to win or that their service is very likely to turn a profit". We considered that referring to the service as a "serious investment opportunity" and stating that their members expected "to make over £100 average profit every day of the week, during every week of the year" went beyond expressing their attitude to betting, and implied that their forecasts were very likely or certain to win. We therefore concluded that the claims were misleading and had exaggerated the likelihood that Isiris' forecasts would win.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
2. Not upheld
We noted the information submitted by Isiris and considered that they had sufficiently substantiated the claim. We therefore concluded that they had not breached the Code on this point.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted the ad stated "86% STRIKE-RATE" in large, bold text. We also noted the text preceding this stated, "Here are some results from the past 12-weeks (showing an 86% strike-rate win and ew from just 28 bets)". We also noted that immediately after the strike-rate claim the ad provided an outline of the profits generated in this period, which again stated, in bold text, that the winning bets included winners or each-way bets. Because the qualification that the strike-rate included each way bets was included prominently in the main body of the ad, next to the strike-rate claim, we considered readers would recognise that the 86% figure included each way bets. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification) and
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration) but did not find it in breach.
4. Upheld
We noted the CAP Help Note on 'Marketing for betting tipster services' stated, "Marketers who make claims about their track record (e.g. by quoting aggregate profit figures) must state clearly the relevant period of forecasting and the total amount of money (the 'bank') needed to place stakes on the forecasts".
We noted smaller text at the bottom of the ad stated "(All claims at advised prices. Total staked in this period: £21,600. These profits were achieved with an initial betting bank = £1,000)". However, we also noted that the profit claim was not linked to this footnote by way of an asterisk or other marker. We therefore considered that neither the total amount staked nor the bank was sufficiently clear or prominent in the ad. Because of this we concluded that the ad breached the Code on this point.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification).
5. Upheld
We noted the proofing summary submitted by Isiris and the full proofing documentation submitted by the Racing Post. We noted Isiris tipped their members via e-mail and that the same tips were sent to all members. We also noted the documentation submitted supported that a profit of £14,505 had been achieved in the 12-week period.
We noted that the proofing summary consisted of 37 tips. We asked Isiris to explain the ad's reference to "Just 28 bets" and they said individual bets could consist of several 'options'. For example, an each way bet on a horse would be considered a single bet consisting of two options and two each way bets on two horses, within the same race, would be considered a single bet with four options. We considered that it was standard industry practice to consider an each way bet on a single horse as one individual bet. We also considered that, in so far as it has an impact on the consumer experience, when these 'options' were in the same market, tipped at the same time and the total amount staked was comparable with other individual bets, it was fair to refer to them collectively as "one bet". However, we considered that where these options related to different markets, were recommended after the related options or the collective stake was disproportionately high compared to other individual 'bets', they should be considered separate bets.
We noted two bets from the proofing documentation consisted of options that were tipped at different times. Although these options were on the same market, we considered that they were additional bets because they had been tipped at a later date. We noted the ad stated, "Just 28 bets" and we considered that this term was significant and would play a role in the reader's evaluation of the profit claim and the service. Because the profit figure for the 12-week period had included more than 28 bets, we considered that this part of the profit claim was inaccurate and misleading.
We noted the Isiris tipster service was a points-based system, which meant that Isiris recommended how many 'points' to stake on a particular bet, rather than an actual cash value. This meant that its members could decide how much money each 'point' represented based on how much they wished to gamble. We considered, as above at point 4, that neither the total amount staked nor the bank was sufficiently clear or prominent in the ad. We also noted that main body of the ad stated, "On current achievement levels of over £5k/month profit, that could be over £85,000 profit in the next 17 months to £100/pt stakes". We considered "current achievement levels" referred to the 12-week profit claim; we therefore considered the claim that this could be achieved on a basis of "£100/pt stakes" implied that the 12 week profit claim had been achieved on this basis.
We noted from the proofing documentation that Isiris did use a points-based system in which one point represented £100. However, we also noted that individual bets, as defined by Isiris above, for the 12 week period were all weighted between 8 and 12 points (or £800 and £1200). Although we acknowledged that with a points-based system a customer would expect some bets to be tipped at above one point, we did not consider that they would assume that all bets would be tipped at between 8 and 12 points. We considered that without clear and prominent qualification explaining either the total amount staked or the value of the average stake, the average reader would infer from the presentation of the claim in the ad that all bets at £100 stakes.
We noted that the proofing documentation supported that a profit of £14,505 had been achieved over the 12-week period. However, because we considered the ad implied that this was achieved with fewer bets, placed at a lower stake, than was actually the case, we concluded that the profit claim was presented in an ambiguous and misleading manner and had therefore breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification) and
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
6. Not upheld
Because Isiris had submitted documentary evidence that the testimonials were genuine, we concluded that they had not breached the Code on this point.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. and 3.47 3.47 Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer. (Endorsements and testimonials) but did not find it in breach.
7. Not upheld
We noted that the ad stated "On current achievement levels of over £5k/month profit, that could be over £85,000 profit in the next 17 months to £100/pt stakes". We noted the claim used conditional language and did not guarantee that any recent successful periods would continue. We noted the ad appeared in Racing Post, a publication for sports and betting enthusiasts and we considered that the average reader would understand the claim was an extrapolation of the profit claim above and not as a prediction for future profits. For these reasons we concluded that the claim was not misleading on the grounds raised by the complainant.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
8. Upheld
We noted the claim referred to "£100/pt stakes" and that Isiris used a points-based system. We also noted from the evidence submitted that, for the 12-week forecast, period, the value of each bet was between £800 and £1200, or 8 and 12 points. Although we acknowledged that with a points-based system a tipster could recommend bets above one point, we considered that without clear and prominent qualification explaining either the total amount staked or the value of the average stake, the average reader would infer that these returns could be achieved with £100 stakes. Because we understood that the period upon which this claim was an extrapolation consisted of bets of between £800 and £1200 we concluded the presentation of the claim was ambiguous and misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification) and
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
Action
The claims investigated and found to be in breach of the Code must not appear again.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.10 3.11 3.3 3.45 3.47 3.7
