Suggested a comparison

badbay00@gmail.

She claimed that the bracelet itself would cost over a thousand crowns in the store in question, even  thousand crowns with all the beads. Only once in the middle of the conversation did she admit that the Pandora product is silver, while the offered product is rhodium-plated."All other mentions of several times higher prices of the product in a certain store gave the impression that these are similar goods that viewers can buy in the Luxusstore teleshopping much cheaper than at the competition," analysts of the Broadcasting Council noted.





The TV station, after being asked by the authority, denied that teleshopping  Chinese American Phone Number List with Pandora. According to her, it wasn't actually a comparison to any specific bracelet and the presenter was "only speaking in general about unspecified shops in tourist areas of cities". Nevertheless, the Broadcasting Council initiated infringement proceedings due to the inadmissible form of comparative advertising, which is only possible on the basis of an objective comparison of the properties and price of both products.






But after a few months, she stopped him in April this year, because this act was not sufficiently proven. In the end, ABC TV withstood the monitoring without any major problems and the criticisms were only of an administrative nature.In the past, for example, the Broadcasting Council fined half a million for the teleshopping block Klenot TV, where the presenter enticed viewers to buy jewelry with a "Certificate of Authenticity of Swarovski crystal", although Swarovski does not issue any such certificates.