JB Hi-Fi’s Flogging Off A Ton Of Gamer Laptops, Monitors, Headsets, Mice

Comments

• Hard to find any actual deals here, as one would expect from JB. A lot of the stock is discontinued and no longer widely available so hard to price check, but items that do come up show that JB’s ‘clearance’ price is equivalent to previously advertised catalogue prices.

  The Logitech G402 at $71.20 is $7 dearer than the Officeworks price of $63.96, and by $10 or more from the usual discount outlets. Bin Lee has the 32ML600M LG 32″ IPS HDR 75Hz Gaming Monitor for $299.

  Reply

  • This…

    JB HI FI are ripping off customers here – this tech is outdated, if you want to buy the monitors they are advertising, go on Ebay and use one of many of the %10-15 discount codes

    Reply

• Implemented in March 2017, the rules say that while there are no requirements that advertising or marketing communication must have a label, it does have to be clear to the relevant audience that the content is commercial in nature.

  For an advertisement to be considered under the AANA Codes it needs to meet two criteria.

  Does the marketer have a reasonable degree of control over the material?
  Does the material draw the attention of the public in a manner calculated to promote a product or service?
  The Ad Standards Community Panel recently considered an Instagram post by a well-known Australian influencer. The image featured a vehicle from a company the influencer had a commercial agreement with. The agreement required her to post regular images with the vehicle and gave the company power to remove images.

  The Community Panel determined that, although advertisers may not have complete control over what an influencer chooses to post and the words he or she uses, the commercial agreement and the power to remove posts is seen to be a ‘reasonable degree of control over the material’. Therefore the post was considered to be advertising or marketing communication.

  The Community Panel then has to consider whether the advertising was identifiable as such to the audience – the influencer’s followers. While influencers in Australia are not required to include #ad, by including the hashtag and handle of the vehicle brand the Community Panel considered this Instagram post to be clearly distinguishable as an ad, noting similar branded images from the Influencer’s previous posts.

  The new provision applies also to paid advertorial content on internet, print and broadcast. Depending on the medium used there may also be additional disclosure restrictions, such as in the Free TV Code of Practice. The Community Panel has determined that including ‘this content brought to you by…’ and promotion of the brand within a print article did not breach the code as it was identifiable as advertising content.

  However, in the first case to be upheld under 2.7, the Community Panel determined that a television infomercial involving hosts interviewing a cardiologist, there was insufficient evidence to show that the segment was paid for by a vitamin company.

  The issue is not confined to Australian advertisers. The Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland updated guidelines regarding bloggers and influencers and said they are willing to name and shame those who do not follow their rules.

  A popular US DJ has also been caught out for not properly stating that his Snapchat and Instagram posts were sponsored content. Following with US advertising standards he has now captioned his sponsored posts with #ad.

  Reply

  • (I typed out a whole thing and then of course Superloop had an outage and the browser lost everything, sigh)

    Anyway, it’s not an ad. We do these stories because readers really like them – and it’s not like JB advertises online anyway, their digital footprint is large enough to sit alongside LinkedIn, IMDB and Imgur in Australia.

    If there’s any sponsorship, we always make sure it’s 100% disclosed. This one is purely just because readers like the service, and that’s the whole point of the job.

    Reply

    • That’s right, service me, Alex!

      Reply

    • Clearly they dont visit Kotaku often enough to understand how much you label sponsorship. If they did, they’d know what they should know about their phone contract (amusingly, its right below this article), or if they’d been around a little longer, how to take the perfect selfie as a cosplayer.

      Labeling sponsored content has never been a problem here.

      Reply

    • i could understand why they would think it is an ad, this is the exact same or super similar post thats been posted for at least 4 days in a row now.

      Reply

• These are all outdated prices lol

  Reply

  • They are indeed.

    Two weeks later, clicking through any of the links shows most or all are back to even more stupid expensive. Top three links alone have gone back from $319 > $399, $549 > $749 and $63.20 > $79.

    Bit of a necro thread, but the article is still appearing on the page 1 sidebar, so :-/

    Reply