ASA Adjudication on SCA Hygiene Products UK Ltd

Ad

A prize promotion named Clean Up With Bounty, on packs of Bounty Kitchen Paper, offered consumers the chance to win cash prizes by entering a code, printed inside the pack, on the Clean Up With Bounty website. The front of the packaging stated "CLEAN UP WITH BOUNTY Over £5 million ... to be won! Millions of cash prizes to be won online instantly ... Promotion closing date: 31/07/09 ... Internet access required ... ". The back of the packaging stated " ... Every special pack of Bounty has a unique code, which gives you an online scratch card to play ... Find your unique 8-digit code on the inside of this pack ... HOW TO PLAY Log on to www.cleanupwithbounty.com Register your details and type in your 8-digit code inside this pack Use your mouse to scrub off 3 panels from 6 to reveal 3 cash amounts If you match 3 identical amounts, you win that cash amount! ...".

Issue

Two complainants challenged whether the promotion was conducted equitably, efficiently and promptly and whether significant information had been made clear; one complainant said he was unable to find the eight digit code without help and the other said the code, once found, was extremely difficult to read.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

SCA Hygiene Products UK (SCA) stated that, before the promotion went live, its mechanic, artwork and terms and conditions of entry were approved by the Institute of Sales Promotion Legal Advisory Service.

During the planning stages of the promotion, SCA considered including a statement on the packaging explaining exactly where the code could be found, but decided that was unnecessary because the manufacturers of the printing equipment had assured them that the code would be clear and easy to read.

SCA said this was the first time they had run a promotion using unique code technology.  They explained that the codes were printed inside the Bounty packaging so that they could not be seen before purchase; unfortunately that meant they were not aware of the printing error until they were contacted by customers after the promotion had gone live.  They accepted that some consumers had experienced difficulty with the legibility of the promotional codes and said they had taken that issue very seriously.  They believed the illegibility issue was unlikely to have been confined to one printing batch and probably affected all the promotional kitchen roll.  They said an inkjet printer was used, which printed in a dot matrix.  When running at speed the spacing of the dots tended to vary slightly and SCA understood that was likely to have had an impact on the legibility of the codes.  They stated that the printing company conducted spot checks on the packaging but SCA were not notified of any of those checks revealing problems with the legibility of the codes.

As soon as they became aware of the problem, they put measures in place to address consumer concerns.  They explained that shipping of promotional packs to stores began on 8 September.  On 11 September, the promotional website and e-mail address went live and over 450 codes were entered by consumers; they received eight e-mails from customers who were unable to find the codes and six e-mails from customers who had entered the wrong codes.  On 12 September, in immediate response to the e-mails, they began to build a 'FAQ' (frequently asked questions) section on their website to help consumers find and read the codes; it went live on 15 September.  By 17 September over 2,200 codes had been entered and 61 e-mail queries had been received.  At this point they were concerned about customer satisfaction and set up a separate section entitled 'Can't Find Your Code?' on their website, which went live on 19 September.  On 24 September a UK helpline (an 0870 telephone number) went live and was flagged up on the website.  They also waived the requirement in the terms and conditions that customers should keep the original packaging for validation purposes.

SCA believed the only alternative to the implementation of those measures would have been to withdraw all promotional packs from public sale.  Because the product had already been shipped to stores by that point, they would have had to recall over 8.8 million packs, which could have left consumers with no chance of entering the promotion or winning the prizes, even though the promotion had already been advertised, and could have led to retailer and consumer complaints about the availability of the Bounty product itself.

In total approximately 94,000 codes were entered on the website and they received 1,909 customer enquiries, which represented less than 2.03% of entrants to the promotion and approximately 0.02% of all promotional packs issued.  If customers e-mailed or phoned to say they could not find their code, they were told it was located behind the terms and conditions panel on the inside of the packaging.  If they had tried unsuccessfully to use a code or said they could not read it, they were given a new code; 230 replacement codes were issued via the helpline and 1,800 were issued via e-mail.  

SCA confirmed that the distribution of promotional packs to stores was now complete, although consumers could still redeem prizes online and the promotion would officially close on 31 July 2009.  They believed the number of promotional packs still in stores was minimal.  They argued that the situation constituted an unfortunate processing error which they had addressed promptly and decisively in order to treat their customers fairly and honestly.

SCA said there were no immediate plans to repeat the promotion or a similar one, but if they were to repeat it they would take into account the lessons they had learned and would investigate the potential development of a bespoke panel on which to situate the code, the potential use of only letters or only numbers to form the code to mitigate any confusion between letters and numbers, the introduction of print trials to ensure legibility of codes and the presence of a SCA staff member to sign-off frequent spot checks and the packaging produced from the print runs.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted unforeseen problems with printing had resulted in the promotional code being difficult to read.  We considered the main problem was that the code was too faint.  We considered that, if the code had been printed more boldly, finding it would have been unlikely to present a difficulty given that the back of the Bounty packaging stated "Find your unique 8-digit code on the inside of this pack".

We noted significant conditions of entry and details of how to participate were made clear on the product packaging before purchase.  We considered the problem was that the code which allowed consumers to participate was difficult to read, not that consumers would not know how to participate.

We acknowledged that SCA were not aware of the illegible codes until the promotion went live, having been assured by the printing manufacturer that they would be clear and easy to read and, as soon as they found out, they took all reasonable steps to address the problem and did so promptly and efficiently.  We also considered the areas SCA had highlighted if they ran a similar promotion again; to ensure codes were clear and easy to read in future.  

We considered that, although the promotion was likely to have caused initial confusion for some consumers, the measures taken by SCA to address the unintentional printing error meant it was unlikely that consumers would have been ultimately misled or unnecessarily disappointed.  We concluded that the promotion was conducted equitably, efficiently and promptly.

We investigated the promotion under CAP Code clauses 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules - Introduction) and 34.1a (Significant conditions for promotions - How to participate) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)