Advertisment
The advertisement promoted a competition in conjunction with the influencer and the advertisers and was seen on the influencer’s Instagram profile.
The advertisement featured an image of the influencer sitting on a couch accompanied by a written description which explained that the winner of the competition would receive an L-shaped couch as well as a €1,000 voucher to spend as they wished at the advertisers’ premises.
The description further explained that in order to partake, competitors had to tag three friends, follow the advertisers’ Instagram account as well as two accounts belonging to the influencer, and share the competition to their own Instagram story.
It was written that the winner would be picked the next Wednesday at 7PM.
Complaint
The complainant considered the advertising to be misleading as the competition description stated that in order to partake, a competitor had to follow the three listed accounts. However, the complainant pointed to a comment left by the influencer on the post promoting the competition which stated that competitors only had to follow two accounts to enter and not three as stated within the advertisement.
Furthermore, the advertisement said that the winner of the competition would be announced the next Wednesday at 7PM, however this did not occur at the indicated time and instead, the influencer posted the following day, Thursday, that the winner would be announced that day at 12PM.
Response
The advertisers did not respond to the request for comment.
The influencer acknowledged receipt of the request for comment and said that they would revert with a response, but they did not.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint. The Complaints Committee expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
The Committee noted the Code requirements that the presentation of sale promotions and the associated publicity should not mislead consumers (5.05) and that the closing date should be clearly stated on each advertisement and that this date should not be changed unless circumstances outside the reasonable control of the promoters make it unavoidable (5.32).
The Committee noted that contradictory information was provided about the eligibility requirements, such as the number of accounts to be followed in order to enter the competition and that the closing date was changed without explanation. In light of this and in the absence of a response from both the advertisers and the influencer, the Committee considered that the advertising had the potential to mislead consumers. They considered it breached Code sections 3.10, 4.01, 4.04, 5.05, and 5.32.
Action Required:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form. The Complaints Committee reminded parties not to make changes to terms and conditions mid-way through a promotion.
