Advertising Standards Authority
The Top Navigation and Site Search section:
A
A
A
A
Home
Accessibility
Cymraeg
Site Map
Contact Us
Search our web site
Search
Banner Feature:
Skip Navigation Links
Main Navigation
About ASA
News and events
Adjudications
Old Broadcast Rulings
Focus On
Advertising Codes
Research
Annual Report
Links
Keep Me Informed
How to Complain
Contact Us
Career Opportunities
Search
Privacy Policy
Accessibility
Visit the CAP web site.
ASA Adjudications
Bandwagon Digital Ltd t/a Bandwagon SoundClash
Unit 6
Bedford Hill
London
SW12 9EY
Number of complaints:
1
Date:
25 July 2007
Media:
Internet
Sector:
Leisure
Ad
A website competition in which 12-18 year olds were invited to enter their bands to win a number of prizes, including the chance to record a single.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the competition:
1. had been administered fairly, because the closing date had changed from 15 March to 15 June and the entrants had not been informed;
2. sponsors listed on the website were genuine, because she believed two of the listed sponsors, SoundControl and Yamaha, had no knowledge of the competition;
3. had an independent judge, because she believed one of the advertised industry judges, Sennheiser, had not been part of the judging panel and
4. whether the winning band had entered the competition, because she believed the band had not appeared on the SoundClash website until after the competition had closed.
The CAP Code
:
27.4
;
31.1
;
34.1c
;
29.1
;
35.9f
;
7.1
Response
Bandwagon said the Sound Clash competition had been set up in November 2006 to give band members who were still at school the chance to win music equipment and record a single with the Sanctuary Records Group.
1. Bandwagon said they had been unable to secure a major cash sponsor for the competition, which was one of the requirements at the outset, and because of that the campaign had not been promoted as widely within schools and the youth music communities across the UK as had been intended. They said the lack of awareness about the competition generated fewer entrants than they had hoped for. Therefore, when the competition reached its planned closing date in March they had decided to extend it to allow them more time to promote the campaign to a wider audience and give more bands the chance to enter. However, following the disappointed response from the bands who had already entered the competition they decided to reverse that decision and they closed the competition as originally intended by announcing the shortlist of bands. They said no new bands had entered during the period between the original closing date and their decision to reverse the extension of the closing date.
They admitted there had been problems with the way in which the decision to extend the competition deadline had been announced; the announcement wrongly suggested that it had been at the request of the sponsors. They said they had since posted an apology on the website.
2. Bandwagon said the sponsors of the competition were Sanctuary Records Group, who had provided judging support for the competition, as well as Yamaha and Sennheiser, who had agreed to provide equipment for the winning band.
They said they had previously discussed with Sennheiser that they would also include Sound Control as a retail sponsor for the competition (because the two companies had a close relationship) but that process did not proceed and the Sound Control logo was left on the Sound Clash website in error; they said the logo was removed once they had been informed of the error.
3. Bandwagon said the process for judging the entrants had been detailed on the Sound Clash website. It stated that the shortlist of bands for the winning prize would be made up of the ten bands who received the most votes or plays on the website and another ten bands chosen by the Bandwagon and Sanctuary judging panel. They said once the decision to extend the competition had been reversed the shortlist of 20 bands was posted on the Sound Clash website.
They said the final winning band was chosen by Sanctuary Records and Bandwagon. They provided contact details to confirm Sanctuary's involvement in that process. They said Sennheiser had declined to participate in the judging process, as had originally been planned but had supported the competition and agreed that its logo could be used on the website.
4. Bandwagon said the winning band had entered the competition appropriately before Christmas. They said the band's profile had not stated that they were a member of SoundClash, because of a glitch on the website. They forwarded an e-mail from the band themselves, in which they confirmed that they had entered the competition in December. Bandwagon said they did not have any records of the band's entry, because they had signed up online. They said the band had been chosen independently by Sanctuary Records.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the terms and conditions stated that the closing date was 15 March but no announcement about the extension of the competition was made on the website until 21 March. We noted the message posted by the Bandwagon management stated "The competition is being extended for three months at the behest of the partners; they want to ensure that enough quality talent comes through".
We noted Bandwagon's decision to reverse that extension because of entrants' disappointed response, and their subsequent apology for the confusion caused by the way in which the message to extend the competition was communicated on the website. We noted, however, that apology appeared on 1 April, after the complainant had contacted Bandwagon.
We considered that, because the decision to extend the closing date had been reversed and because no new bands had entered during the period the competition seemed to have been extended, the original entrants had not been disadvantaged.
However, we considered that Bandwagon had failed to deal fairly and honourably with entrants and had caused unnecessary disappointment, both through their failure to inform entrants of the decision to extend the closing date until after the closing date had passed and the way in which they communicated that decision. In addition, we noted CAP Code clause 29.1 required marketers to take special care when addressing promotions to children (people under 16). Given that Bandwagon's competition was aimed at 12-18 year olds we considered that they had failed to take the needs of their audience into account and had not taken particular care when administering their competition.
On this point, the competition breached CAP Code clauses 27.4 (Sales promotion rules), 29.1 (Children), 31.1 (Administration).
We also investigated the competition under CAP Code clause 34.1 (Significant conditions for promotions) but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
We contacted Yamaha, who confirmed that they had agreed to support the competition through the provision of prizes. However, we understood from the complainant that Sound Control had stated that they had been approached to sponsor the competition but had refused. We also noted the removal of the Sound Control logo from the website had occurred only after the complainant had contacted Bandwagon in March.
Although we noted Bandwagon's statement that the Sound Control logo had appeared in error, we considered that the appearance of that logo on the website would have led entrants to believe Sound Control had agreed to sponsor the competition. Because they had not, we concluded that the competition was misleading.
On this point, the competition breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 27.4 (Sales promotion rules).
3. Upheld
We noted the terms and conditions of the competition stated that both Sanctuary and Sennheiser would be involved in the judging process. We contacted Sanctuary Records, who confirmed that they had been involved in choosing the shortlist of artists and the eventual finalist.
We noted Sennheiser was a sponsor of the competition but had not been involved in the judging process. We were concerned to note an e-mail from Sennheiser to the complainant suggested they were not aware that Bandwagon expected them to participate in the judging process.
We noted the CAP Code stated "If the selection of winning entries is open to subjective interpretation, an independent judge, or a panel including one member who is independent of the competition's promoters and intermediaries, should be appointed". We noted the judging panel had consisted of Bandwagon and Sanctuary Records only. We considered that because Sanctuary Records were a sponsor of the competition and were providing the winning prize, they could be seen to have a vested interest in the outcome of the competition. We concluded that Sanctuary Records could not be considered an independent judge and because no independent judge had been involved in the selection of the winning entry the competition had breached the Code.
On this point, the competition breached CAP Code clauses 31.1 (Administration) and 35.9 (Other rules for prize promotions).
4. Not upheld
We noted the winning band's website profile had not been properly updated to reflect their entry to the competition and that had led to some confusion amongst other entrants. However, we noted that was caused by a website glitch and the band had confirmed they had entered in December. We concluded that, on this point, the competition had been administered fairly.
On this point, we investigated the competition under CAP Code clauses 27.4 (Sales promotion ruled) and 31.1 (Administration) but did not find it in breach.
Action
We told Bandwagon to ensure that they administered their competitions fairly in future and took special care when addressing those competitions to children. We also told them to ensure that in their future competitions they appointed an independent judge that did not work for an organisation that could have a vested commercial interest in the outcome of the competition.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
back
|
top