Household

A social media post by Showtime Essential Kitchen products promoted a competition in association with Lacanche:
“Showtime Easter Egg-stravaganza!
WIN a €250 voucher to dine at the [restaurant name and location].
We want to see your favourite LACANCHE pictures, simply attach your photo to our post, SHARE, FOLLOW, and LIKE our page in order to be entered and we will choose the best one! The winner will be announced Tuesday 10th April.
GOOD LUCK & HAPPY EASTER.”

The complainant considered that the advertised competition had not been administered correctly as, after entering the competition by posting a photograph and liking and sharing the advertisers’ page as required, they noted that the winner had not been announced by the date referred to in the advertisement and that when the winner was finally announced, it appeared they had not entered the competition correctly as they had not uploaded a photograph, nor commented on the post. The complainant also said that it appeared the winner followed the advertisers’ own personal profile. The complainant referred to a comment by the advertisers that the winner had been picked from all their entries which had consisted of followers and likes and that they would post a picture of the winner in the restaurant concerned in due course.

The advertisers stated that while they had run competitions on social media before, they were really only finding their way. They said that they did not have a specific person looking after their social media as they mainly advertised in magazines. They said that they had engaged a firm to handle their social media, however, their first promotion with them had not been handled correctly. They said that the promotion had run over by about 10 days as their contact in the firm was away, however, they decided to pick a name from their Facebook ‘friends’. The advertisers said that they did not know 99% of their Facebook ‘friends’ on their Showtime account therefore, the name had been picked at random. They admitted that they had administered the promotion incorrectly by choosing an entry that had only liked and/or shared rather than attaching a photograph.

At the time of responding they said that the winner had still not collected their prize and they would be asking for a photograph with the winner before giving them the prize. Finally, they said that they have reviewed how they carry out competitions in order to prevent any misunderstanding in the future and that it was not their intention to cause upset to anyone.

Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Committee noted that the winner had not been selected in line with the published entry conditions. In addition, as the manner in which the winner was selected involved a draw, an independent observer should have been present. In the circumstances, the Committee considered that the promotion was in breach of Sections 5.5, 5.18, 5.36 and 5.37 of the Code.

ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form. The Complaints Committee also told the advertiser to ensure that future promotions are carried out in line with the published terms and conditions and that if they are using a prize draw, they must ensure that they have an independent observer present.