Competition

A competition by Healthwise Pharmacy Group referred to the following:

“MEGA COMPETTION ALERT

We are giving away a €1000 in Healthwise Giftcards to thank our wonderful customersand followers for all your support in 2019…

We have 10 x €100HealthwiseGiftcards to giveaway and all you have to do is…

LIKE, SHARE and TAG on this post and all posts between now and Christmas Eve

We will announce allwinners onChristmaseve, so get liking and sharing between now and then

GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!”

Issue 1
The complainant said that the competition did not appear to have any terms and conditions attached to it other than the requirement to like, share and tag on every post between the relevant dates. He said that, furthermore, there had been no mention of a closing date for entry to the competition.

Issue 2
The complainant said that all the social media platforms where the competition featured had not been mentioned.

Issue 3
The complainant queried whether the winners to the competition had met all requirements of entry, that all posts had to be liked, shared and tagged. A random selection of posts by him had revealed that only three winners should have been eligible for their prize via Facebook. In addition to this he considered that there was only one eligible entrant on Instagram.

Issue 4
The complainant also queried whether therehad been an independent observer presentwhen the draw was conducted.

Issues 1 and 2
The advertisers said that this had beena very simple promotion similar to other promotions organised by multiple entities on social media platforms. They said they were happy to stand over the integrity of their competition which had involved no payment or necessary purchase.

The principle of the competition was that anyone interacting with them on social media was entitled to be entered into the draw if they interacted with their promotion by “Liking and sharing” the published posts, no further input was required and there were no other terms and conditions attached to the competition.
The prizes were stipulated as being10 x €100 vouchers and the competition ran until Christmas Eve when the draw was made.

Issue 3
The advertisers said that all prizes advertised had been given to randomly selected customers who had no connection or relationship with their company. On examining their advertising in conjunction with the complaint, the advertisers said that perhaps the issue which arose had been caused by the use of the word ‘all’ in their post i.e. to “like share and tag this post and all posts…” They said this had never been their intention and not what had been stipulated when they authorised the competition. It was their understanding that anyone who liked and shared posts were eligible to be in the competition.

They said the first time they knew about the use of the word ‘all ‘was when the complaint had been brought to their attention as they had not been directly involved in the running of the competition.
They said they believed that the fact their subsequent posts / publications had stated that those who interacted and shared their posts had a chance to be entered into the draw had clearly demonstrated this fact. They considered that the complainant had forensically examined the social media accounts of the winners to see if they had liked and shared all posts, and if all winners hadn’t, they considered them to be ineligible winners.

Issue 4
The advertisers said that the draw had been conducted by their independent marketing agency and the winners chosen on a random basis.

All prizes advertised were given to randomly selected customers who had no connection or relationship with the advertisers’ company.

In conclusion the advertisers said that they were aware of the need to operate any promotion or competition advertised in compliance with ASAI guidelines and would ensure both they and any social media partners familiarised themselves with all aspects of the Code going forward.

The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaintand the advertisers’response.

Issue 1– Upheld
The Committee noted that there had been no terms and conditions attached to the competition and that the closing date was implied rather than specifically stated.

In the circumstances the Committee considered the advertising to be misleading and to be in breach of Section 5.30 (a) of the Code.

Issue 2– Not Upheld
The Complaints Committee noted that the competition could be entered from any of the social platforms that the advertisers were active on. They noted that the advertisement on Facebook had not stated that it was exclusively promoted on Facebook. They Committee considered that consumers would be aware that advertisers would promote competitions over multiple platforms, and they did not consider that this practice was a breach of the Code.

Issue 3- Upheld
The Complaints Committee noted that the use of the word ‘all’ in the advertisement may have been used in error. Nevertheless, it had communicated to readers that in order to enter the draw, they had to like, share and tag all posts between the relevant dates. As this requirement was not followed in the selection of eligible entries, the Committee considered that the post was misleading and in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Code.

Issue 4– Not Upheld
The Complaint Committee noted that the advertisers’ marketing agency rather than the advertisers had overseen the selection of the winners and considered they had fulfilled the requirement for an independent observer being present at the draw. They did not consider that a breach of the Code had arisen in this case.

Action required: The Committee told the advertisers to have clear terms and conditions for future promotions, including the entry mechanism and a closing date.