Ad description
A competition for festival tickets, advertised on MTV UK's Facebook page, stated "Gutted about missing out on festival tickets? Here's your chance to win three-day VIP tickets to one of the biggest events of the summer with MTV and Starbucks UK! All you have to do is show your #SipFace. Don't pretend you don't know what that means. Just upload a photo of yourself sipping a Starbucks Frappucino!".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the competition had been administered fairly, because he understood he had a winning entry, but had not been contacted to receive his prize and no other winners had been announced.
Response
MTV Networks Europe (MTV) explained that the "SipFace" competition required entrants to submit photographs of themselves sipping a Starbucks product. Entrants and other members of the public could then vote for their favourite photo. At the end of the voting phase the SipFace competition prizes were awarded to three entrants who received the most votes. By voting, voters were entered into a separate competition to win Starbucks gift cards. MTV said the SipFace winners had received their prizes, but, in line with their usual practice, they had not announced the winners on their website. They said the terms and conditions stated that they would provide a list of winners if a request was made in writing.
MTV said the aggregation of the votes was conducted on their behalf by a third-party company, which had various systems in place to detect voting which was inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the competition. MTV said that, on reviewing voting data sent to them on the last day of voting, they found that a large number of votes for two entrants ‒ one of whom was the complainant ‒ were inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the competition. A number of votes for the complainant had the same postcode, incomplete addresses and e-mail addresses in a noticeably similar format, and votes for the other entrant had noticeably similar or nonsensical e-mail addresses. They said it also appeared from the data that the two entrants had colluded with each other: votes had been cast for the complainant by suspicious accounts created in the format which primarily voted for the other entrant, and vice versa. MTV said they had discounted the suspicious votes and as a result the two entrants fell well below the top three entrants. The two entrants were also disqualified from the competition for breaching the terms and conditions. MTV said it was not their policy to inform entrants when they were disqualified.
Starbucks Coffee Company UK Ltd (Starbucks) said they had been involved in the branding part of the competition (in that entrants had to submit a picture of them sipping a Starbucks product) and had contributed part of the prize, but the competition was administered by MTV. They said that at the time of organising the promotion they were informed by the agency that MTV had advised they were the sole promoter of the competition.
Starbucks provided copies of the terms and conditions for entrants and the terms and conditions for voters, which were available for view at the time of entry or voting, both of which explained how a list of winners could be obtained. Starbucks said they had been informed, after the competition closed, that MTV were investigating some discrepancies in the voting and entries, but they did not have more detailed information.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA understood the complainant had entered the competition and, at the time voting closed, was in the top three entrants who had received the most votes, but he had then not been contacted about receiving his prize. The complainant therefore understood that no winners had been announced.
We noted the terms and conditions for the SipFace competition stated that three winners would be selected, and that those winners would be "the entrants with the highest number of public votes". We also noted the terms and conditions for voters stated that: they may vote for as many competition entries as they liked, but could only vote for any single entry once; all voters must include their name, age, address (including postcode), e-mail address and telephone number; and that any entries made via participation in a syndicate or through any form of machine assisted intervention would be disqualified, and that multiple entries from the same IP address would be discounted.
We noted the reasons MTV had given in relation to discounting a large number of votes from the complainant's total. We understood those voting entries were incomplete, and were likely created by one individual, and therefore breached the terms and conditions for voters. We also noted that there was evidence to suggest that the complainant had colluded with another entrant to vote multiple times for each other. We considered MTV's action in discounting such votes was in line with the terms and conditions, and we noted that, after discounting those votes, the complainant (and the other entrant) had significantly fewer votes than the winning three entrants. We also noted that the terms and conditions for SipFace competition entrants stated how a list of winners could be obtained.
We considered it would have been preferable for the terms and conditions of the SipFace competition to have clearly stated the circumstances under which votes for entries would not count as "public votes", but we nevertheless noted that the terms and conditions for voters made those circumstances clear. Given that the spreadsheet of voting data showed that the complainant had voted for another entrant using their correct details, we considered the complainant had had the opportunity to familiarise himself with the circumstances under which votes would be discounted. We considered that the combination of irregularities with votes for the complainant's competition entry provided reasonable grounds for the decision to discount a number of the votes for their entry in accordance with the terms and conditions. The advertiser, therefore, had not breached the terms and conditions of the competition in relation to the announcement of winners. We concluded the promotion did not breach the Code.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1 8.1 Promoters are responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions. and 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), 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. 8.15 8.15 Promoters must allow adequate time for each phase of the promotion: notifying the trade; distributing the goods; issuing rules if relevant; collecting wrappers and the like and judging and announcing results. 8.15.1 8.15.1 Promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days. (Administration), 8.27 8.27 Withholding prizes (see rules 8.15 8.15 Promoters must allow adequate time for each phase of the promotion: notifying the trade; distributing the goods; issuing rules if relevant; collecting wrappers and the like and judging and announcing results. 1 and 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. .2) is justified only if participants have not met the qualifying criteria set out clearly in the rules of the promotion. and 8.28.5 8.28.5 Promoters must either publish or make available on request the name and county of major prizewinners and, if applicable, their winning entries except in the limited circumstances where promoters are subject to a legal requirement never to publish such information. Promoters must obtain consent to such publicity from all competition entrants at the time of entry. Prizewinners must not be compromised by the publication of excessive personal information (Prize promotions), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
8.1 8.14 8.15 8.15.1 8.2 8.27 8.28.5
