ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: The Winners Club Ltd

Complaint

Objection to a direct mailing, for a prize draw promotion. Text at the top of the mailing stated "UNCLAIMED AWARDS REGISTRY". A box below listed cash sums and electrical items to be awarded. Text continued " ... the items listed remain unclaimed following last year's promotions ... One of the awards listed above is definitely guaranteed yours to claim immediately. To find out which item has been allocated to you, please make a note of your unclaimed award ID number ... and follow the instructions below ... 1 You can telephone us on 0906 570 0542 and listen for your Award ID Number ... ". Text in the footnote stated "UK calls cost £1.50 per minute."

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the cash sums to be awarded were in fact money-off vouchers and

2. the mailing misleadingly implied the recipient had definitely won a prize and that it was of a value substantially greater than the amount likely to be expended in seeking to claim it.

3. The ASA challenged whether the "no purchase necessary" route had been given sufficient prominence.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Adjudication

1. Complaint not upheld

Winner's Club Ltd (Winners Club) gave their written assurance that all awards and prizes expressed to be paid in cash were paid in cash or by cheque, not in money-off vouchers.

The ASA acknowledged Winners Club's written statement and were satisfied that awards were paid in cash or by cheque.

On this point, we investigated the mailing under CAP Code clause 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Complaint upheld

Winners Club asserted that the word "prize" was used once in the mailing; they said all other references were to items or awards and believed there was no suggestion in the mailing that the recipient had won a prize. They pointed out that the number of awards of each type were listed and argued that a reasonable reader would understand that, because there were a greater number of smaller value awards than those of a higher value, their chances of obtaining a smaller value award were greater. Winners Club said reasonable consumers would be able to discern the likely costs involved in claiming their award and maintained that the mailing did not mislead.

We noted the reference to "prizes" appeared in the box prefaced by the complainant's name and that the few items of high value, some of which were marked "Claimed", were included in the same lists as the items of relatively low value awarded to many. We considered that the presentation of this information, in conjunction with text in the "Details of delivery" section of the mailing that stated "Despatch value: up to £15,000: to be confirmed on claim" and the photo of Mr Garbutt holding a £25,000 cheque on the reverse of the mailing, was likely to suggest to the recipient that they were entitled to a high value award. We also noted, of the three items awarded to most recipients, two were electrical items that would incur a charge of £4.99 before they could be claimed, and the other was a cash award that was not significantly greater in value than the cost of the premium rate phone or text route for claiming the award. We concluded that the presentation of the mailing was misleading and told Winners Club to amend their approach to ensure they differentiated clearly between items awarded to most people and prizes awarded to a few.

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 35.1 (Prize promotions).

3. Upheld

Winners Club said they received many entries by post and they considered that was evidence that the no purchase entry route was sufficiently prominent. They added that it was identified on the front page of the mailing, immediately after the instructions for the text entry route. Winners Club also argued that the postal route was presented in bold print in the "Summary of Rules" section on the reverse of the mailing.

We noted the availability of a postal entry route. However, because prominence had been given to the telephone entry route highlighted in bold, and because the information about the postal claim route was included in the same paragraph as the instructions on how to claim by mobile phone, we concluded that it was likely to be overlooked by people who had no interest in claiming by mobile phone and could lead readers into believing there was no postal entry route. We told Winners Club to separate the postal entry route from the information about claiming by mobile phone and ensure it was given sufficient prominence to avoid it being overlooked. We told Winners Club not to repeat the approach and advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before distributing future mailings.

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 34.1a (Significant conditions for promotions).