ASA Rules On Non-amazing Non-giveaway – Advertising, Marketing & Branding

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:

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.