ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd

Complaint

Objections to a direct mailing, for a prize draw, that was headed "Dream Home Giveaway". The text stated Dear XXX, Congratulations, I'm pleased to inform you that your entry in the Dream Home Giveaway Promotion has been successful. You have definitely been selected to receive one of the following: £250,000 Dream House (or £250,000 Cash) £10,000 Cash Digital Camera Sony 32" Widescreen TV Internet Ready Laptop Digital Camcorder To claim your award and to allow us to confirm your details are correct, you may call our 24 hour Claim Line on 09061 270785 (or by post). You will need to provide your successful award number. YOUR SUCCESSUL AWARD NUMBER IS: XXX Once you have called and confirmed your details (see over) we will despatch your goods. I would like to take this opportunity to offer you my congratulations. Yours sincerely ... Customer Services Manager P.S. Please register within 7 days to ensure your award is not reallocated to someone else"; the mailing included photographs of the prizes and a claim form on the reverse. The smallprint stated "Calls cost £1.50 per minute. Max time 6 minutes. If you wish to receive your claim number by post, please write with your Award Number to Dept VC, Dream Home Giveaway ... and include a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Deadline is 7 days after receipt of your claim number. Rules: Closing date 31st December 2004. One prize per household ... Dream House value strictly £250,000 including all associated costs. Laptop includes Windows 2000. Digital Cameras require a payment of £10, which includes the camera, software, a USB cable, postage and packing. Prizes limited to 1000+ x Pensets, 1000+ x Quartz Alarm Clocks, 1000+ x Digital Cameras. All others x 1. This promotion and the prizes indicated are shared between several different themed scratchcards and mailings ... ". The complainants:

1. challenged whether the mailing misleadingly implied recipients had won a substantial prize and

2. objected that a £10 charge applied to the digital camera.

The Authority challenged:

3. whether the mailing, especially the words "congratulations" and "successful", implied recipients were luckier than they were and

4. whether the mailing differentiated clearly between gifts awarded to most recipients who made a claim and prizes awarded to a few.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Adjudication

The advertisers asserted that all recipients of the mailing were entitled to receive one of the six listed awards and they were simply congratulating recipients for being chosen to receive the mailing and their entitlement; they argued that, although the use of "win" and "prize" were widely used in the industry, the mailing did not use the words "won", "win", "substantial" or "prize" and the mailing did not unnecessarily raise recipients' expectations. The advertisers said significantly fewer than 50% of respondents to the various mailings that comprised the promotion received the digital camera, which required a payment of £10; they said that information and the number of items available were detailed in the smallprint. They believed all the awards were substantial and were accurately reflected in the photographs in the mailing. The advertisers said they had consulted ICSTIS when preparing the mailing and had sought advice from the CAP Copy Advice team, for another promotion, on the terms and conditions attached to the digital camera and had used that copy in the mailing.

1. & 3. Complaints upheld

The Authority considered that the text "Congratulations, I'm pleased to inform you that your entry in the Dream Home Giveaway Promotion has been successful. You have definitely been selected to receive one of the following:" and "YOUR SUCCESSFUL AWARD NUMBER IS" implied recipients had entered a competition, had proceeded to an advanced stage and were eligible to receive a substantial item. It understood that recipients had responded to a previous, similar mailing from the advertisers, but that mailing did not include information on the Dream Home Giveaway promotion. Because recipients had been selected from consumers who had responded to previous mailings from the advertisers and because the mailing included the item that most recipients were likely to receive in the same list as those awarded to one person only, the Authority considered that the claims implied recipients were luckier than they were and they had won a substantial prize. The Authority asked the advertisers to amend the approach with help from the CAP Copy Advice team.

2. Complaints upheld

The Authority noted the main text of the mailing stated recipients had been selected to receive an "award", but nevertheless noted the smallprint referred to the items as "prizes". The Authority considered that most people were likely to understand the words "award" and "prize" to mean those items were free of charge. Because the item that most recipients were likely to receive was included in a list of major awards that did not incur a charge, and because a £10 charge was levied before respondents could receive the camera, the Authority considered that the body copy of the mailing was likely to mislead people about the nature of the "award" and the £10 charge for the camera contradicted that impression. The Authority asked the advertisers not to repeat the approach.

4. Upheld

The Authority noted the smallprint stated "Prizes limited to 1000+ x Pensets, 1000+ x Quartz Alarm clocks, 1000+ x Digital Cameras. All others x 1"; it understood that the pensets and alarm clocks were awarded to recipients of other promotional mailings. The Authority considered that, because it included the item that most recipients were likely to receive in a list with those more valuable items awarded to only one person, the mailing did not distinguish clearly enough between those scarce items available only to a lucky few and those items awarded to many. It noted the advertisers' assertion that the camera was awarded to significantly fewer than 50% of recipients of all the mailings in the promotional scheme, but also noted the Dream Home Giveaway mailing offered five major awards to one person respectively and an item of relatively low value to everyone else. The Authority was concerned that, by including the digital camera in the list of major prizes and the illustrations, the mailing did not differentiate adequately between gifts awarded to most people and prizes awarded to a few. The Authority concluded that the mailing was misleading and told the promoters to amend it.