A competition run by Antique Jewellery Group, seen in December 2016 on their Facebook page, included text which said "Win a £375 Antique Ring … Enter our festive prize draw and be in the chance of winning this gorgeous tanzanite cluster ring, worth £375".
The complainant, who won the prize draw but believed the ring they received was not tanzanite, challenged whether the competition was administered in accordance with the CAP Code.
Antique Jewellery Group Ltd said the item was incorrectly described as a "tanzanite cluster ring" when in fact it should have said "tanzanite cz cluster ring". They said when entrants followed the link on the Facebook page to the prize-draw entry web page, the full description of the prize would have appeared, which made it clear that the tanzanite was "created" and a "cz". They explained that this was a simple error in the titling up of the item in the social media campaign by a third party. They also said the title also incorrectly stated the prize was "antique" (although it was mentioned correctly as 'Victorian Style' in the main body text on the prize-draw web page). They said it was impossible to have an "antique tanzanite ring" as the stone was only mined within the last 100 years and therefore cannot qualify as an "antique".
They assured us that they had taken all social media posts in-house since April 2017 and they were proof read before going live. They also said they had put £75 towards re-sizing the ring at the request of the complainant and that they would require the original ring back, in perfect condition in its original packaging and paperwork before discussing any remedies (as per their T&C's).
The CAP Code stated that promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days. They must also avoid causing unnecessary disappointment and must ensure their promotions were conducted under proper supervision.
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the promotion’s prize as being an antique tanzanite ring worth £375, given the description in the ad on their Facebook page for the promotion. We noted that a tanzanite ring, as represented in the image of the ad, would be considerably more expensive than the prize described in the promotion (approximately £3000–£4000). However, we considered the inferiority of the prize the complainant received and the lack of remedy made available to them was likely to cause unnecessary disappointment.
We noted that the prize had been advertised in error and that the advertiser had taken some steps to resolve the complaint with the complainant. However, because the complainant had not been delivered the prize featured in the promotion we concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and was in breach of the Code.
The promotion 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. 8.14 8.14 Promoters must ensure that their promotions are conducted under proper supervision and make adequate resources available to administer them. Promoters, agencies and intermediaries should not give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint. and 8.15.1 8.15.1 Promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days. (Promotional Marketing).
We told Antique Jewellery Group Ltd to ensure that future prize descriptions were accurate and to avoid causing unnecessary disappointment to consumers in the administration of future promotions. We advised them that they should award the prize as described (or a reasonable equivalent) to the complainant.