An Instagram, Facebook and Twitter post by Hughes TV and Audio:
a. The Instagram post, posted on 4 February 2021, included a caption which stated “Enter our latest prize draw to #WIN a @bekogb AquaTech Washing Machine! Simply follow us @hughes.co.uk, screenshot & repost this post – remember to tag us in!” and “For T&Cs visit our website. Prize draw closes 10/02/21”. The post included an image which showed a washing machine alongside text which stated “beko”, “AQUAtech”, “WIN! 9KG 1400 Spin Aquatech Washing Machine”.
b. The Facebook post, posted on 8 February 2021, included a caption which stated “Don’t forget to enter our latest prize draw to #WIN a Beko AquaTech Washing Machine!”, “Simply like our Facebook page and comment below for your chance to win! Good Luck”. The post included an image which showed a washing machine alongside text which stated “AQUAtech”, “beko”, “WIN! 9KG 1400 Spin Aquatech Washing Machine”.
c. The Twitter post, posted on 8 February 2021, included a caption which stated “Don’t forget to enter our latest prize draw to #WIN a @BekoUK AquaTech Washing Machine! Simply follow us @HughesDirect & RT Ends 10/02/21, Ts&Cs apply”. The post included an image which showed a washing machine alongside text which stated “AQUAtech”, “beko”, “WIN! 9KG 1400 Spin Aquatech Washing Machine”.
IssueThe complainant, who believed ads (a), (b) and (c) related to the same promotion but that it was not possible to combine all entrants into a single draw, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly.
Hughes TV and Audio Ltd said that each of the ads related to the same prize draw promotion. They said for their prize draws, promotional posts were posted on Facebook and Twitter on a Thursday, Saturday and Monday. Promotional posts were posted on Instagram on a Thursday and Monday.Hughes outlined their winner selection process. They said that each platform was assigned a number and that they used a random number generator to firstly select a platform randomly, which they saved.
Hughes said that if Instagram was selected, then through their own Instagram account they would view entrants’ tagged posts, assign a number to each entry and used a random number generator to select a winning entry at random.
Hughes said that if Facebook or Twitter was selected by the Random Number Generator, they then used a random number generator again to pick a particular day’s post (Thursday, Saturday, or Monday) to focus on. Hughes said that if Facebook was selected, they then sorted and numbered the entries and used a random number generator to select the winning entry. If Twitter was selected, Hughes said they used computer software to choose a winning entry.
Hughes said that for each of the mechanisms they would then confirm the selected winner had qualified for the competition.
The CAP Code required promoters of prize draws to ensure that prizes were awarded in accordance with the laws of chance and, unless winners were selected by a computer process that produced verifiably random results, by an independent person, or under the supervision of an independent person.
The complainant challenged whether the prize was awarded in accordance with the laws of chance because they understood there was no way of combining entrants from across the three platforms and selecting a winner at random. However, we noted Hughes had a system in place for selecting a prize winner which used a computer process that produced verifiably random results.
The CAP Code also required that marketing communications or other material referring to promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information was likely to mislead. Each of the ads (a), (b) and (c) cross-promoted the same promotion on Hughes’ Facebook, Instagram and Twitter pages. None of the ads included any reference to the multiple ways in which it was possible to enter the promotion, and we considered the audience was unlikely to be aware of them. We considered Hughes’ method of choosing the platform first, followed by an entrant on that platform, was likely to lead to entrants having different chances of winning, if the number of entrants on each platform was different and if there was no process in place to account for that. We therefore considered information that the promotion was open to entrants across multiple platforms was likely to significantly influence consumers’ understanding of the promotion, and was important so that they could make an informed choice about how, and how many times, to enter. On that basis we concluded that the promotion breached the Code.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 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. (Promotional marketing), 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. (Administration), 8.17 and 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions).
The promotion must not appear again its current form. Hughes TV and Audio Ltd must ensure that their future promotions include relevant applicable significant conditions where their omission was likely to mislead.