Ad description
Two prize promotions on www.plumbworld.co.uk's Facebook page:
a. A post stated "WIN a FREE Kindle Touch! All you have to do is 'Like' the Plumbworld Facebook page & share this picture to be in with a chance of winning!" and pictured a Kindle Touch and details of the promotion. A follow-up post stated "Right guys, we've entered everyone into the prize draw and randomly selected one person who had shared & liked the Plumbworld page. The winner of the Kindle Touch competition is ... [name] Thanks to everyone else for entering, we'll have more competitions coming soon!".
b. A post stated "WIN a FREE iPad Mini! All you have to do is 'Like' the www.PlumbWorld.co.uk Facebook page & share this picture to be in with a chance of winning!" and pictured an iPad Mini and details of the promotion. A follow-up post stated "As we promised ... Time to announce the lucky person who's going to be winning an iPad Mini! *Drum roll* ... And the winner is - [name]! Congratulations, we've contacted you and will send the prize over as soon as we receive your details".
Issue
The complainant, who did not believe the winners were genuine, challenged whether the promotions had been administered fairly.
Response
Online Home Retail Ltd t/a plumbworld (Online Home Retail) said the competition to win the Kindle ended on 3 September 2012 and the competition to win the iPad ended on 2 January 2013. The competitions ran separately for just over a month each and generated around 3000 'likes' and 'shares'. People who 'liked' plumbworld on Facebook and shared the competition photo were entered into the competition. They said they did not receive any further personal information from the entrants and no e-mail address or contact telephone number had to be given. When each competition ended, their IT team populated all the entrants into a random number generating computer program and assigned them each a number. A number was then generated at random to select the winner. Having selected winners for each competition they said the only way in which they could contact them was to post on the plumbworld Facebook wall the name of the person and a link to their Facebook page. They said Facebook did not allow businesses to send individuals a 'private message' directly. They said that neither winner had contacted them to claim their prize. They said they intended to allow six months between the time of notification and any 're-draw' of prizes, if it was necessary. They did not believe it was relevant that the winners' profile pages did not show much activity because they understood it was common for people to create separate accounts to enter competitions, and also that it was normal for a high number of entrants to enter a competition on the last day. They said that since being contacted about the complaint some of their 'posts' and photos from the competitions had been removed and they were therefore uncertain how they would access the 'likes' and 'shares' to hold any re-draw for the prizes.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that the method of entry to the competition meant that Online Home Retail had not collected any personal information about the entrants. We considered that, given that they understood it was common for people to create profiles solely to enter competitions and that businesses were not allowed to message individuals directly, it would have been preferable for them to use an entry mechanism that involved the collection of personal contact details for the entrants, so that winners could be informed directly. Online Home Retail said that the only way for them to contact the winners was via plumbword's Facebook wall. However, we noted that neither wall post announcing the winner asked the individuals to contact them, and one stated "we've contacted you". We were not aware of any follow-up posts or saw any other evidence that Online Home Retail had attempted to contact the winners. In addition, we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that the winners had been selected in accordance with the laws of chance. Online Home Retail stated that the apparent removal of some 'posts' and photos from their profile meant they were not able to hold a second draw for the prizes. However, we considered that they should have retained this information, particularly given that the promotion for the iPad ran for some time after the promotion for the Kindle, in which they said they had not been able to contact the winner. We considered that Online Home Retail had not demonstrated that they had conducted the promotions equitably, promptly or efficiently or appeared to have dealt with the participants fairly and honourably. We therefore concluded that promotions (a) and (b) breached the Code.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.2 8.2 Promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. Promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment. (Sales promotions) and 8.24 8.24 Promoters of prize draws must ensure that prizes are awarded in accordance with the laws of chance and, unless winners are selected by a computer process that produces verifiably random results, by an independent person, or under the supervision of an independent person. (Prize promotions).
Action
The competitions must not be run again in their current form. We told Online Home Retail to ensure that any future promotions complied with the requirements of the Code.
