ASA Adjudication on ShortList Media Ltd

Ad

An online competition for ShortList stated “Win A TV, Camera & Digital Radio To celebrate the release of Cameron Diaz’s newest film, The Box on DVD and Blu-ray now, we have (takes a deep breath) a Sony 32-inch TV, a Blu-ray player, a PURE EVOKE Mio portable radio - which comes with input for an mp3 player - an Olympus Tough 3000 camera - with built in HD movie function - and a copy of the film. Want more? Didn’t think so”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the competition was misleading and administered fairly because she was told that the TV and Blu-ray player were not included in the prize.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Shortlist Media Ltd (Shortlist) said there was a print version and an online version of the competition; they explained that the print version did not state that a TV would be a part of the prize. Shortlist said they originally intended to place a larger print ad, warranting a higher value prize, and agreed with the agency supplying the prize to include a TV. However, because the size of the ad changed, Shortlist believed the ad required a lower value prize and decided to remove the TV.

Shortlist explained that, due to an administrative error, the incorrect version of the competition, including references to the TV as part of the prize, appeared in the online ad. On receiving correspondence from the winner about the TV, Shortlist contacted the agency who said they were unable to provide them with the TV. Shortlist said they too did not have the budget to supply the prize. Shortlist argued their terms and conditions stated that they would not be liable for the provision of the prize and that, as the promoter, they had the right to alter prizes as they saw fit. They apologised for any inconvenience the administrative error caused.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the complainant responded to the online version of the competition that stated a Blu-ray player and a TV were included in the prize. We understood that an incorrect version of the competition had appeared online, but nonetheless considered that the ad had inaccurately described the prize that would be awarded. We were concerned that Shortlist had not provided the winner with an alternative prize to that stated in the ad and considered the terms and conditions of the promotion did not absolve them of their responsibilities under the CAP Code. We concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment to the winner and therefore breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 27.3, 27.4 and 34.1 (e) and 35.10 (Sales promotion rules).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Shortlist to ensure that future promotions accurately described the prizes that would be awarded and reminded them of their responsibilities to administer sales promotions fairly.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)