ASA Adjudication on Nestle UK Ltd

Ad

A prize draw for the chance to become a Big Brother housemate.

Issue

11 complainants challenged whether the draw:

1.  had been made in accordance with the laws of chance, and

2.  had been made under the supervision of an independent observer.

CAP Code

Response

Nestle, Channel 4 and Endemol sent a combined response.  

1. The promoters said an independent observer from Electoral Reform Services (ERS) had checked the number on each ball before it was placed in the lottery machine. They sent film footage of the Big Brother garden covering some of the period before, and during, the draw and testimonials from staff members who had observed the events.  They showed the ASA slow-motion footage of the balls as they spun in the machine during the draw and of the moment when the winning ball was chosen.  The promoters also sent evidence that a variety of props had been ordered on the basis that any one of the Golden Ticket holders might have entered the house.

2.  The promoters repeated that an independent observer from ERS checked the numbers on the balls and was present when they were loaded into the machine.  They said a different independent observer watched the draw, which was conducted on television, from her home.  They said the observer was not allowed to be physically present during the draw, because the long established rules of the show did not permit any outsiders to come into contact with the Big Brother housemates. They nevertheless pointed out that the live draw took place in the presence of ten housemates, was continuously monitored by the production team and was watched live by more than five million viewers.  They believed that those factors fulfilled the requirement for an independent observer to be present at the draw.

Assessment

1.  Complaints not upheld

The ASA noted an independent observer from ERS had signed a check-sheet to show 34 individually numbered balls (one for each Golden Ticket holder) were placed in the machine, and the slow motion footage of the draw showed there were numerous different numbered balls in the machine, and the ball drawn was undoubtedly number 14.  Although we noted the independent observer had left the Big Brother garden before the draw took place, the testimonials and props, combined with the slow motion footage, satisfied us that the draw had been conducted in accordance with the laws of chance.

We investigated whether the promotion was conducted in accordance with the laws of chance.  On this point, the promotion did not breach CAP Code clause 35.7 (Prize promotions).

2.  Complaints upheld

We noted an independent observer was present as the balls entered the machine, but not in the period immediately before the draw or at the time the draw took place.  Because we considered that an independent observer should have been present and watching throughout the process of the draw and particularly at the point the winning ball was drawn, we concluded that the draw was not conducted under the supervision of an independent observer.

We investigated whether the promotion was conducted under the supervision of an independent observer.  On this point, the promotion breached CAP Code clause 35.7 (Prize promotions).

Action

We told the promoters to ensure that future promotions were carried out in accordance with the Code.