ASA Adjudication on Steven Stone Ltd

Ad

A leaflet for Steven Stone, a jeweller, stated "Win a unique diamond set ring worth £10,000 ... if you buy any piece of jewellery from Steven Stone between March 1st and November 30th 2005 you can enter our fantastic competition to win a £10,000 Diamond Ring! To qualify for entry you must have a receipt for any purchase (dated between the 1st March 2005 and November 30th 2005) from Steven Stone. You can purchase online, by telephone, or in person in the Manchester Showroom … Simply complete the following Slogan in no more than 15 words. I buy my jewellery at Steven Stone because …". Small print at the bottom of the entry form stated "Terms and Conditions: ... 7. By entering all participants will be deemed to have accepted and be bound by the rules … 9. The winner's name and entry details including name and county will be available after the closing date on sending a SAE marked diamond winner, to the competition address …".

Issue

1. The complainant, who had requested a copy of the list of winners on several occasions but had not been sent one, challenged whether the competition was genuine.

2. The ASA challenged whether the competition had been administered correctly.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Steven Stone asserted that the winner of the competition had requested that her details were not made public. They sent the winners contact details but explained that they had been unable to make contact with her because she had moved to a different address since the competition ended. They sent a copy of the valuation they had made of the diamond ring chosen by the winner; they had valued it at £10,000. They asserted that they had no other documentation relating to the awarding of the prize or its value.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA attempted to contact the person Steven Stone asserted won the competition but we did not receive a response. We noted Steven Stone had sent a copy of the valuation they had made of the prize but no other documentation was available. We considered that, because we had been unable to contact the winner of the competition to confirm that she had received her prize and because we had seen no independent documentary evidence to show that a diamond ring worth £10,000 had been awarded, we had not seen sufficient evidence to show that the competition was genuine.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 35.9e (Sales promotion rules - Other rules for prize promotions).

2. Upheld

We noted the leaflet made clear in the terms and conditions that the winners details would be made available after the closing date and that, by entering the competition, participants agreed to that condition. We also noted Steven Stone had asserted that the winner had not wanted her details to be disclosed and therefore they had not sent the complainant the details of the winner on request. We considered that the terms and conditions of the competition had not been followed and that the competition had therefore not been administered correctly.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules - Introduction) and 31.1 (Sales promotion rules - Administration).

Action

We told Steven Stone to ensure that all competitions were administered correctly and that they could prove that competitions were genuine in future. We advised them to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before carrying out future similar promotions.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)