ASA Adjudication on Nestle UK Ltd

Ad

A poster, national press ad and point of sale material announced a prize draw promotion to win a place in the Big Brother house.

a. The poster prominently featured the Big Brother psychedelic “eye” logo and stated “GOLDEN TICKET FIND ONE FOR YOUR CHANCE TO BE A HOUSEMATE”. The Channel 4 and Nestlé KitKat logos were placed alongside the text.

b. The national press ad, which also featured the Big Brother “eye” logo, was headlined “FIND ONE FOR YOUR CHANCE TO BE A HOUSEMATE”. The ad showed photographs of a KitKat chunky bar and also a four finger KitKat. Boxed text stated “GOLDEN TICKET 4”. Boxed text running along the base of the ad stated “WINNERS MUST CLAIM BY 10:20PM ON 2ND JUNE 2006 LATEST. TICKETS CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN KITKAT 4 FINGER AND KITKAT CHUNKY SINGLE BARS INCLUDING PACKS FEATURING THE 1966 WORLD CUP WINNERS FLASH”. Smallprint stated “No purchase necessary. See www.channel4.com/goldenticket for full details & terms and conditions”.

c. Point of sale material on in-store stands, window displays and stock bins featured the Big Brother logo and was headlined “100 GOLDEN TICKETS! FIND ONE FOR YOUR BIG CHANCE TO BE A BIG BROTHER HOUSEMATE”. Further text stated “WINNERS MUST CLAIM BY 10:20PM ON 2ND JUNE 2006 LATEST TICKETS CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN KITKAT 4 FINGER AND KITKAT CHUNKY SINGLE BARS”. Smallprint stated “No purchase necessary. See www.channel4.com/goldenticket for full details & terms and conditions”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1.  the significant terms and conditions of the promotion were clear and

2.  the nature and number of prizes were clear.

CAP Code

Response

Nestle explained that the promotion consisted of two elements: finding a Golden Ticket for a chance to take part in the Big Brother programme on 9 June and, at the point of appearing on the programme, having a chance to be selected to become a Big Brother housemate.  They said the promotion was complex and strongly believed, if details of the promotion were given only in part in the limited space available, it would cause confusion.  They asserted that the most direct and unequivocal way to communicate the promotion was via the Channel 4/Big Brother website where all elements of the promotion were fully explained.  

They said they had taken advice from the Institute of Sales Promotions (ISP) on a previous promotion.  On that occasion, they were advised that, if consumers were referred to a website to find out all the terms and conditions of the promotion, they could not be seen to be encouraged to participate without clearly being told where full details could be found before purchase.  They said key elements of the promotion, namely the no purchase necessary route, closing date and directions to the website for full terms and conditions, were mentioned on a number of different promotional formats, which included a TV and radio campaign, the national press, point of sale material and the Channel 4 website.  

Nestle said the poster would have been seen by passing motorists for only a few seconds.  They argued that it was common practice for posters to have only one clear message and pointed out that fine print could not be read on billboards.  They said the posters were intended to act only as reminders.

They said the press campaign featured two other ads, which, in addition to the text in the national press ad, gave details about the number of Golden Tickets available in the promotion.  Nestle explained that, although the national press ad did not give information about the number of tickets, it pointed readers to the Channel 4 website to obtain full details prior to making a decision to participate in the promotion.

Nestle said the point of sale material was despatched to approximately 40,000 retailers who participated in the promotion and added that each unit carried about 250 bars, which resulted in a large number of consumers viewing the text at close range.  They also pointed out that the point of sale items were quite large and the text size on them was, therefore, relatively prominent.

They asserted that the ads did not mislead about the nature of the prize, because they referred to a chance to become a housemate.  They said there were clear details about the number of prizes available and other significant conditions in the promotional material and reiterated that interested consumers could ascertain full details of the promotion without having to make a purchase by visiting the website they were directed to.

Assessment

1.  Complaint upheld

The ASA noted the national press ad and point of sale material included the closing date of the promotion and instructions to see the Channel 4 website to find out full details and terms and conditions; the poster did not include any conditions.  While we appreciated that full details were available on the Channel 4 website and recognised that it would be impractical to include all terms and conditions in marketing for the promotion, we considered that any elements that were likely to affect a consumer's decision to enter should have been included in all marketing.  We noted the website gave instruction that all claimants of Golden Tickets must be over 18 years of age and considered, therefore, that Nestle should have made that clear in all marketing.  In addition, we considered that the poster, particularly because it was on display for two days after the promotion closed, should have included the closing date.  

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 27.3 and 34.1 (Sales promotion rules).  

2.  Complaint not upheld

We noted all of the promotional material referred to the prize as a chance to be a housemate and considered, therefore, that it was clear that Golden Ticket finders were not automatically guaranteed a place in the Big Brother house.  We also noted the point of sale material made clear that 100 tickets were available to be found.  Although the poster and national press ad did not specify the number of tickets distributed, we considered that that was unlikely to result in consumer detriment because, by not disclosing the 100 figure, they suggested that only one ticket was available; the chances of finding a ticket were, therefore, greater than implied.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) but did not find them in breach.

Action

We told Nestle to ensure any future campaigns included all significant conditions of entry to avoid misleading and disappointing consumers and advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising future prize promotions.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)