Advertisment
Instagram content by the influencer promoted a competition they were running in conjunction with the advertiser.
Post Version 1:
“Car Giveaway? Win an Audi?
Well everyone this is not a drill to spice up November I am linking up with @adoreautos to giveaway an Audi worth thousands + €512 in cash heading into December to buy what you wish!
How to win this unreal prize
• Tag 4 friends below
• MUST follow @adoreautos & @conr_clothing & @irelandyumz & MEEEEEE
• Add to story tagging us both
• Like this post
• Bonus if follow my Tik Tok link in bio
Easy as that folks while I’m here just wanna mention to everyone to stay positive we are all in this together and December will be worth everything we are going through right now!
Ps; anyone looking for a first time car or any car at all @adoreautos is the place to go drop them a message for more information!
# (influencer’s initials) #AdoreAutos”
Post Version 2:
“Car Giveaway? Win an Audi?
Well everyone this is not a drill to spice up November I am linking up with @adoreautos to giveaway an Audi worth thousands + €512 in cash heading into December to buy what you wish!
How to win this unreal prize
• Tag 3 friends below
• MUST follow @adoreautos & @conor_clothing & @fadyzs_fades @irelandyumz
• Add to story tagging us both
• Like this post
• Bonus if follow my Tik Tok link in bio(don’t have to)
Easy as that folks while I’m here just wanna mention to everyone to stay positive we are all in this together and December will be worth everything we are going through right now!
Ps; anyone looking for a first time car or any car at all @adoreautos is the place to go drop them a message for more information!
#(influencer’s initials) #AdoreAutos”
Story:
An image from a story published on the 2nd of November featured onscreen wording that stated:
“Competition on my page giving away an Audi 17.45pm today. Stay tuned @adoreautos”
Complaint
The complainant considered that the competition was in breach of the Code as the influencer appeared to change the entry conditions during the course of the competition.
The complainant said that a post was published on the 2nd of November with a requirement to tag four friends and follow two accounts. However, four accounts were listed. They said that a story was also published that day stating that a winner would be chosen that evening, however, the next morning the story was no longer available even though it was within the 24-hour period that it should have been available for. The complainant then noted that the post had been edited with a new requirement to tag 3 friends and the same requirement to follow two accounts, however, of the four accounts listed, one was a different account to those listed in the original version.
The complainant believed that entries made on the day the post was first published would not be following the correct accounts to qualify as a winner and they believed that the frequent changing of the entry requirements made it virtually impossible for anyone to win.
Response
The advertisers stated that they had engaged the services of the influencer to assist them promote their company. They said that they paid for the car to be given as the prize and the influencer had written the posts in question.
The Influencer stated that the date the winner was to be picked had never been changed. They said that they had stated it was an Ad from the get-go. They said that entrants only had to follow him and the advertisers as the rest of the accounts were bonus points. They said that when the winner was picked, they had checked that they were following just him and the advertisers.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the response provided by the advertisers and the Influencer.
The Committee noted from the Influencer’s response that entrants were only required to follow the influencer and the advertisers. However, on examining the two versions of the post, the Committee noted that the requirement was “MUST follow” and had listed four social media accounts, three of which were the same in the two versions of the post published, with the requirement to follow the influencer not included in the four accounts listed in version two of the post.
The Committee also noted that the post had said that entrants were required to add the post to their own story, tagging “us both”. However, no clarification had been included as to which two accounts to tag.
The Committee further noted that no closing date had been included in either version of the competition post and while the story had stated that the draw would take place on the evening it was posted, version two of the post had been published on the following day.
The Committee also noted that the post had said that there was a bonus if entrants followed the Influencer on Tik Tok. However, no details as to what the bonus was were provided in the advertising, nor had any details been provided as to how the winner would be selected.
In the circumstances, the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Sections 5.5, 5.30(a), (b), (f), (h), (i), (j) and (k), 5.31, 5.33, 5.36 and 5.37 of the Code.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertisements must not reappear in their current form. The Complaints Committee told the advertisers and the influencer that future competitions must comply with the Code requirements for competitions with prizes.
