Just found this from the Advertising Standards Authority. Looks like clear evidence that IG Index advertise services they clearly are not providing............
IG Index
Friars House
157-168 Blackfriars Road
London
SE1 8EZ
Date: 15th October 2003
Media: Insert
Sector: Financial
Industry Complaint From: London
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint:
CMC Group objected to a press insert advertising an online trading system. Text stated "The best in on-line dealing The world leaders in spread betting are proud to announce the fastest, most advanced and most reliable on-line trading system available."
The complainant challenged the claims:
1. "... fastest ... on-line trading system available ..."
2. "... most advanced ... on-line trading system available ..."
3. "... most reliable ... on-line trading system available ...".
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 19.1, 19.2 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said they had looked at four financial markets: the S&P 500, the Dax, the Dow Jones and the Nasdaq-100. The advertisers compared their online trading platform with systems provided by two of their competitors. The advertisers monitored each system during the same three-minute interval and counted the number of price changes, or 'ticks', observed. The advertisers said their system had published the greatest number of 'ticks' in all four products. The advertisers also asserted their site was the fastest based on other criteria: fastest for clients to log on to either as first-time or as returning users, and fastest for opening or closing trades. The advertisers compared their own and four competitors' online trading systems; they provided figures that showed the length of time taken to open and close a £20 bet on the daily Dow on all five systems. The advertisers' figures showed their system was, on average, over four seconds faster than the nearest rival. The Authority took expert advice. It understood that the benchmark for measuring an online trading system's speed was how fast trades were executed and confirmed, not how frequently 'ticks' were updated. The Authority understood that, though the advertisers had provided evidence to show their platform was faster for the dealing process, the advertisers had not carried out the daily Dow trades at the same time. The deal the advertisers carried out on their own platform was transacted before the US market had opened. The Authority understood that online trading platforms had to deal with significantly higher activity while the US market was open. That highlighted that the test conditions were not uniform for all platforms. The Authority understood there were many other providers of online trading platforms than the spread betting and CFD providers mentioned in the advertisers' evidence. Those other system providers, with whom the advertisers did not compare their system, ranged from global investment banks, to data and dealing system vendors. The Authority therefore considered that the advertisers' evidence was limited in scope and concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... fastest ... on-line trading system available ...". It advised the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
2. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said their online trading platform was the most advanced because their system offered a range of features, not all of which were available on their competitors' platforms. They maintained those features included: live prices updated in virtual real-time with an improvement providing valuations of customers' open positions; free access to a news service; fundamental and technical analysis with graphics; a browser-based interface; fully automated dealing; electronic transfer of funds using a debit card and support for both Sun and Microsoft Java Virtual Machines. The Authority took expert advice. It understood the advertisers' claim was based on assertions that their system provided 'unique' features which, in fact, were offered by many other firms, including competitors within the spread betting and CFD fraternity. The Authority understood the advertisers' evidence had not compared their system with software belonging to the many other companies, apart from spread betters and CFD providers, who possessed online trading systems. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... most advanced ... on-line trading system available ..." and asked the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
3. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said their system was highly stable with a low incidence of downtime, system crashes and failures. They believed other systems were less reliable than their own, but they admitted that their supporting evidence was largely anecdotal and subjective. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... most reliable ... on-line trading system available ..." and asked the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
....................................................................................................
Steve.