- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
ASA rules them in breach of BCAP Code on all 3 complaints by public.
Two ads on sports.williamhill.com and a TV ad made claims about the odds available during various sporting events:
(a) One web ad stated "BEST PRICES ON THE BEST HORSES BET NOW" and "ROYAL ASCOT SATURDAY 23RD JUNE 2012".
(b) Another web ad stated "EURO 2012 BEST PRICES ON THE BEST TEAMS".
(c) The TV ad, which focused specifically on text betting, stated "Best Odds Guaranteed on all UK & Irish Horse racing".
Action
The ads must not appear or be broadcast again in their current form. We welcomed William Hill’s commitment to retain appropriate substantiation for future claims and we told them to ensure that they did so. We also told them to ensure that future ads did not imply that their odds could not be bettered by other bookmakers, if that was not the case.
Interesting stuff Robert.
Seems all bookmakers will in future need to be careful how they advertise "best odds guaranteed".I’ve often wondered about those betfair adverts. Do the "better odds than (fill in a particular bookmaker)" ads include betfair’s commission?
Value Is EverythingInteresting stuff Robert.
Seems all bookmakers will in future need to be careful how they advertise "best odds guaranteed".I’ve often wondered about those betfair adverts. Do the "better odds than (fill in a particular bookmaker)" ads include betfair’s commission?
Surprised Racing Post did not immediately pick up on this for the benefit of their punter customers. Still it will surely be their headlines tomorrow.
From the ASA ruling it seems that WH do not even know its own prices at the time, let alone competitors. Pure fantasy they believe mugs will fall for, without question. Getting down to Betfair Commission comparisons does not yet come into it. I think Betfair put "non-commission" in the small print when complaints arose.
Good that ASA take up cases with just the few complainers that actually write in, rather than waiting for the thousands that just pointlessly post their moans on Forums / Twitter.
On a related matter, anyone interested in why most of the wholly one-sided "terms and conditions" of bookmakers such as "false and baffling related contingencies", palps and voiding remain illegal and subsequently null and void if they adversely effect the customer’s payout, take a read of the official Government advice:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/report … oft311.pdf
The Gambling Commission pay lip service to this even though it is written in their Code of how bookmakers should operate to be acting fairly, as the UK Gambling Act requires
Interesting stuff Robert.
Seems all bookmakers will in future need to be careful how they advertise "best odds guaranteed".I’ve often wondered about those betfair adverts. Do the "better odds than (fill in a particular bookmaker)" ads include betfair’s commission?
Betfair ads state in *small print that the comparison takes 5% commission into account.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.