The ASA has recently published a ruling about a prize promotion which didn't go amazingly, despite the promoter's name.
The CAP Code states that promoters must award the prize as described in their marketing communications, or a reasonable equivalent, normally within 30 days. It also states that promoters must ensure that their promotions are conducted promptly and efficiently and avoid causing unnecessary disappointment, or giving consumers justifiable grounds for complaint.
A Facebook post by Amazing Giveaway's [sic] Ltd included the text:
"With summer hopefully just around the corner, why not get involved with this Holiday Voucher Competition. For just £5 you could be walking away with a £3000 TUI holiday voucher. Please click the link below to get involved".
The terms of entry said that there was no minimum number of entries and that the draw would take place regardless of how many entries were received. The complainant believed they had won the prize draw but had not received the prize and so complained to the ASA that the promotion breached the CAP Code.
The complainant was listed on the advertiser's website as the only entrant in the prize draw. They believed they had won the prize, but Amazing Giveaways told them that they had not intended to continue advertising the promotion and that the prize could not be awarded, as the number of ticket sales for the promotion would not cover the cost of the prize. They told the ASA that they were no longer in business. They had refunded the complainant's entry fee but said that they could not provide the prize for a competition which had been advertised in error.
CAP has issued guidance on prize promotions, which says that any promoter who needs to generate sufficient revenue from the competition to fund the advertised prize is likely to breach the Code if they fail to sell the required number of tickets. Amazing Giveaways stated that, due to unforeseen circumstances, they had not intended to continue advertising the competition. The ASA acknowledged that events outside the promoter's control might mean the promotion could not be carried out as originally intended, but promoters were still responsible for the efficient administration of the promotion. It expects promoters to ensure that they have made appropriate preparations and have sufficient resources in place to run the promotion as planned.
The ASA also considered that the entrant to the competition was likely to have caused considerable disappointment. As a consequence, the ASA concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and breached rules 8.2 (Promotional marketing) and 8.14 and 8.15.1 (Administration) of the CAP Code.
What are the learnings from this case?
It is important that when you are running a promotion that you award the prizes as described in your marketing communications. It is also essential to make sure that your promotions are administered fairly and effectively and do not cause unnecessary disappointment or give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint. If you are charging for entry, don't rely on receiving enough entries to cover your costs. Another key point is that a prize draw might be considered an illegal lottery if participants are required to pay to enter. In this case, there was a free entry route as well as the paid route.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
