Advertisment
The advertisers’ Facebook page posted various competitions for hotel breaks.
A sample competition stated:
“April Spa Steal Competition Time. ‘Share to win’.
In the corner of the image within the post it stated: “T&C’s”.
The posts then detailed the package offered and contact details for booking, together with the price of the package.
A comment under the post by the advertisers stated:
“To view the winners of our Weekly Facebook Competitions, please visit our Facebook page Every Sunday at 10.05pm where the winner’s name will be pinned to the top of our Facebook page. If your (sic) not are (sic) lucky winner, please keep trying because if your (sic) not in you can’t win – you can also book any of these deals that are advertised on our Facebook page by phoning us..”
A further comment on the post by the advertisers stated:
“€1,000 cash €1,000 monthly draw — When you book directly with the Holyrood Hotel by phone or through our website or through email or by messaging us privately on our Facebook page you automatically enter our €1,000 monthly cash draw.”
A second sample competition stated:
“Competition time to win an April Hotel Spa Break For 2. ‘Share to win’.”
In the corner of the image within the post it stated: “T&C’s”.
The post included details of the hotel facilities and the package offered, contact details for booking together with the price of the package.
The comments section included the following by the advertiser:
“To view the winners of our Weekly Facebook Competitions, please visit our Facebook page Every Sunday at 10.05pm where the winner’s name will be pinned to the top of our Facebook page. If your (sic) not are (sic) lucky winner, please keep trying because if your (sic) not in you can’t win – you can also book any of these deals that are advertised on our Facebook page by phoning us..”
A further comment on the post by the advertisers stated:
“€1,000 cash €1,000 monthly draw — When you book directly with the Holyrood Hotel by phone or through our website or through email or by messaging us privately on our Facebook page you automatically enter our €1,000 monthly cash draw.”
Complaint
The complainant objected to the advertising on the following grounds: Issue 1:
The complainant considered that the competitions had not included any information as to when the draw would take place.
Issue 2:
The complainant considered that multiple competitions were being run each week however, it appeared that only one winner was being drawn per week.
Issue 3:
The ASAI Executive requested comments regarding the fact that the competitions did not include any details or link to terms and conditions of entry, nor any information on how consumers “Share to win”.
Response
The advertisers responded to the issues raised.
Issue 1:
The advertisers stated that they had been successfully running the competitions on Facebook for several years and had hundreds of happy winners. They said that the names of all the winners had been announced on their Facebook page at the stated time and they had also recorded all the winners’ details on their reservations system. They said that they ask their winners to comment and share on the post announcing them as the winner so people can see that it’s a genuine competition with genuine winners.
Issue 2:
The advertisers stated that they had been successfully running the competitions on Facebook for several years and had hundreds of happy winners. They said that the names of all the winners had been announced on their Facebook page at the stated time and they had also recorded all the winners’ details on their reservations system. They said that they ask their winners to comment and share on the post announcing them as the winner so people can see that it’s a genuine competition with genuine winners. The advertisers did not address the complaint that only one winner was drawn each week.
Issue 3:
They advertisers said that the terms of the competition were clearly posted on either the post with the image or in the comments directly below the post. They also said that all competition posts had included the rules of the competition and the date the winner would be announced. They considered that the term “Share to Win” was self-explanatory and was a phrase commonly used on social media platforms.
Conclusion
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1 – Complaint Upheld:
The Complaints Committee noted that the posts were being used as both publicity for the competition and to promote sales of the packages. The Committee also noted that no information had been included in the posts themselves as to when the competition draw would take place, however, a comment on the post by the advertisers had directed followers to view their Facebook page every Sunday at 10.05pm to see the winner’s name, but no details were provided as to whether this was a live draw or if a draw was to take place at an earlier point in time. In the absence of this information and as the Committee considered that it was possible for the post to be viewed without viewing the comments, the Committee considered that the absence of a closing date and information as to when the winner would be drawn within the post was in breach of Sections 4.1, 5.5, 5.30 (a),
5.30 (j) and 5.32 of the Code.
Issue 2 – Complaint Upheld:
The Complaints Committee noted the commentary that winners’ names were announced at the stated time (Sundays at 10.05pm) and were recorded in the reservation system. No further comments had been received to address the complaint that while multiple competitions were run each week, it appeared that only one winner was being drawn per week. They considered consumers could reasonably expect each competition to have a winner. In the absence of such information to demonstrate this, the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Section 5.5 of the Code.
Issue 3 – Complaint Upheld:
The Complaints Committee noted that the sample posts images had included “T&C’s”, however, no details had been provided as to where the terms and conditions could be viewed. The Committee also noted that while information on how a consumer could enter the monthly cash draw had been included as a comment on the posts, no details of the rules on the weekend hotel breaks competitions were viewed on the sample posts and no evidence of such information being included in the posts was submitted. While the Committee noted that the post had stated “Share to Win”, no details had been provided as to whether entrants were to tag the advertiser and whether the post was to be shared as a Facebook story or on the entrant’s timeline. In the absence of explicit rules within the post and the location of terms and conditions, the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4, 5.5, 5.15 (a), 5.16, 5.17, 5.30 and 5.32 of the Code.
Action Required:
The advertising should not reappear in its current form.
