Advertisment
Lidl Ireland’s Facebook page featuring a picture of a shopping trolley packed with groceries announced the fact that it was “Competition Time! And posed the following question
“Have you got your entry in for a year’s free shopping worth over 5,000?!
Be sure to fill in your entry card in store before Christmas Eve to be in with a chance of winning in your county!”
The advertising on Lidl’s website for the same competition referred to the following:
“Win a Years Free Shopping!
Simply fill in your entry card in-store
To be in with a chance of winning a year’s free shopping worth over €5000 at Lidl, simply:
1 Answer the following question in ten words or less on your entry card, including your name, address and contact number so that we can get in touch with you if you win!
Q. What is your favourite thing about shopping with Lidl at Christmas?
2 Pop your entry into the competition box in-store before 24th Dec 2016.
We’ll select one lucky winner in each county of the Republic of Ireland.
T&Cs
By entering into this competition, participants automatically accept its Terms and Conditions. 1 winner will be selected in each county of the Republic of Ireland. Entries must be written on the correct entry card to be valid. All valid entries will be entered into the competition. Multiple entries are permitted. Customer contact details will only be used for the purpose of processing the winning entry. See www.lidl.ie for full T&C’s.”
One of the terms and conditions attached to the competition outlined the fact that:
“To enter the competition, entrants must fill out the entry form given to them by the cashier and complete the sentence provided in ten words or less, fill out all fields in the competition entry form and submit same in the box provided in their local Lidl store by Saturday 24th December 2016. One winner will be chosen from each county in the Republic of Ireland. The winner of a year’s shopping will be chosen and notified within 4 weeks after the close of the competition.”
Another condition referred to the fact that:
“The winner of a year’s free shopping must be willing and available to attend a PR shoot for the prize. The footage gathered will be the intellectual property of Lidl and is likely to be used in promotional material. The photography shoot will be scheduled to take place at a Lidl Store/premises close to the address of the winner. Acceptance of the prize constitutes permission to use the relevant winner’s name, hometown and likeness (likeness as it has been shot or in an altered manner) for purposes of advertising, promotion or publicity in any media without additional compensation and prize winners agree to take part in such related promotional activities as the promoter may require.”
One further condition outlined the following:
“The competition is open to all residents of the Republic of Ireland over the age of 18, excluding employees of Lidl Ireland and Lidl Northern Ireland, partners, families, or anyone associated with this competition”.
Complaint
Complaint 1
The complainant said that she became concerned that the winners to the competition had not been announced. She emailed the company on three separate occasions to enquire about the results of the competition. On the last occasion she was informed that “the competition had closed and the winners were picked and contacted”. She said she wrote once again to Lidl and outlined to them that as per the rules of the ASAI Code, promoters should either publish or make available on request, details of the name and county of residence of prize winners. She said that further emails ensued and she was eventually informed that Lidl’s advertising and legal departments had confirmed that as per Section 5.34 of advertising legislation that ‘promoters should bear in mind the risk of theft or harassment that may arise if the details given are sufficient to allow the address of a winner of a prize of substantial value to be identified’. As a result of this and also due to Data Protection they were not obliged to release the winners’ names without their permission. They said that with the permission of three winners they had announced their identity on Facebook.
Complaint 2
The complainant queried whether the prize winners had received their prizes no more than six weeks after the promotion had ended as in keeping with the rules of the ASAI Code.
Complaint 3
The complainant queried whether there had been an independent observer present to oversee the final draw.
Response
Complaint 1
The advertisers said that they take their responsibilities very seriously when it comes to their marketing communications. They provided the ASAI with the list of winners to the competition on a confidential basis. They pointed out that while their terms and conditions had referenced the fact that prize winners had to be available for promotional activities, they ultimately decided not to go ahead with this aspect of the Campaign. They said they had chosen not to publish the list of winners to the competition as they considered the prize to be of significant value.
Complaint 2.
The advertisers said that there had been a minor administrative error which had given rise to a slight delay in the distribution of the prizes to the competition winners. They said that the successful competition participants were content to bear with them as they worked through the delay. The winners were then invited to collect their prizes from the relevant stores on 6th February 2017.
Complaint 3
In relation to the administration of the competition, the advertisers said that numerous controls had been put in place to ensure that it had been in keeping with the spirit and practice of the ASAI Code. They drew particular attention to clause 3 of the governing terms and conditions which had stated that:
“The competition is open to all residents of the Republic of Ireland over the age of 18, excluding employees of Lidl Ireland and Lidl Northern Ireland, partners, families, or anyone associated with this competition”.
They said that this stipulation had been included so as to preclude any allegation, or even the appearance, of bias in relation to the administration of the competition or the selection of winners. They said as a result of the logistical hurdles with the administration of the competition, it had been determined from the outset that the store manager in each store would act as judge, with the process being independently observed by a Sales Operation Manager (SOM) whose duties encompassed the operation of a number of stores in a regional district. They pointed out that even if there had been a possibility that an individual store manager had recognised an entrant’s name due to their presence in the community, the inclusion of the SOM as an independent person who travels between numerous stores on a district, would have precluded any such possibility as a result of their inherent detachment from any particular local community. In this case the advertisers said they had taken “independent” to be independent of the competition’s entrants or the communities involved in the competition, rather than the company itself.
The advertisers said that it was their opinion that because of the question posed (i.e. the best thing about shopping at Lidl at Christmas) that it was a necessary requisite that each judge had a detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of a Lidl store, and therefore the store manager had been the most appropriate person to fill that role, with the inclusion of the SOM as an independent observer. They said this structure had also avoided any additional complication of sourcing “independent judges” for each one of their nearly 160 stores.
They said further precautionary measures had also been put in place after each winner had been selected in each store, this involved all names being forwarded to their head office, where a further selection process had taken place, entirely independent of the first. This stage of the process had been overseen by staff from head office.
In conclusion the advertisers said they considered that they had taken the appropriate steps to ensure fairness in the way their competition had been run.
Conclusion
The Complaints Committee considered the details of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
Complaint 1 – Upheld
The Committee noted that the while the Code provided that “Promoters should bear in mind the risk of theft or harassment that may arise if the details given are sufficient to allow the address of a winner of a prize of substantial value to be identified”, it also required that “Promoters should either publish, or make available on request, details of the name and county of residence of prize-winners.” They noted that while a list of the winners had been made available to the ASAI, it had not been made available on request. In the circumstances, the Committee considered that a breach of Section 5.34 had occurred.
Complaint 2 – Not Upheld
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. They noted that the winners to the competition had been notified of their win within the six week timeframe. The Committee accepted that there had been a slight delay in the winners receiving their prize but accepted the advertisers’ explanation that this had been the result of a minor administrative error. They did not uphold this complaint.
Complaint 3 –Upheld
The Complaints Committee considered the details of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. While noting the procedures the advertisers had put in place in the interest of conducting the competition in a fair manner, they expressed their concern that there had been no observer independent of the company present and that at all stages, the competition had been supervised by Lidl employees. While the Committee concluded there was no evidence to suggest that this had in any way affected the operation of or influenced the outcome of the competition, nevertheless they noted the Code requirement that an “independent observer” should be present during the process of selecting winners to such competitions. In the circumstances they considered that this element of the competition had breached Sections 5.36 and 5.37 of the Code.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The Complaints Committee reminded advertisers/promoters of the need for a robust approach to transparency when conducting promotions. The names of the winners should be made available on request and independent observers used when required by the Code.
