Ad description
A competition on a website selling sex toys, www.sexshop365.co.uk, for the "Adult Blog Awards 2013" stated "Welcome [sic] the Sex Shop 365 annual 'Adult Blog Awards 2013', we have decided to give the community of sex bloggers around the world [sic] to enter and become further recognised and have their loyal fan bases vote them. Here you will find a list of ranked blogs, anyone can sign up, if you have an established website, WordPress or even a BlogSpot account, we want you to enter. All you have to do is sign up, you can then add the banner code to your page, and you can get people to start voting for you! This code will be sent once your website has been approved by our checking team. The prizes for the Adult Blog Awards come straight from Sex Shop 365 HQ, £300 worth of sex toys and goodies! Voting closes 25th April 2013". Further text stated "Rules Any blogs submitted must be live and being updated at least twice monthly ... A voting button is provided upon registering, you can use the vote link independently...Voting closes 25th April and winners announced the day after. [..] Votes are converted into daily averages to allow blogs to join awards at any point of the competition without being disadvantaged".
Issue
The complainant, whose blog had been removed from the competition and who also believed the competition winner was a company employee, challenged whether the promotion had been administered fairly.
Response
I D Web Ltd t/a SexShop365.co.uk (I D Web) said that the software they used to run the awards system removed blogs from the top 18 results shown on their website if the participant had not received any votes in the previous two weeks, and that this had been the case with the blog in question. They said this did not mean the blog had been removed from the competition, and the website would reappear in the results list once a further vote was received. They explained this was an oversight and they had not been aware of this when they purchased the software. It was brought to their attention by a website with poor traffic and no votes. They said they did not have the skills to change the programme themselves and at that point they were several weeks into the competition so made the decision to continue as it was. They said that if they ran the awards in 2014 they would not use the same software.
They confirmed that many of the participants in the competition had worked with them in the past, including one of the three winners. However, they were not employees of the company but had written for them on a freelance basis only. They said they did not have any influence over the decision as to the winners because it was based entirely on readers' votes. Votes were achieved by clicking on the awards logo on the participants' websites. The website with the most daily average votes won the prize. They said they extended the prizes to include second and third prizes halfway through the competition due to its success. They said if they ran the competition into 2014 they would again allow bloggers who had worked with them on a freelance basis to enter.
Assessment
Not upheld
The complainant said she had contacted the company when she noticed her blog was no longer listed on the awards web page as participating and was told that blogs that were inactive for two weeks were removed automatically. I D Web clarified in their response to the complaint that the blogs were removed only from the listings on their website, and not from the competition itself. The ASA understood that voting was promoted on the individual blogs in question, and that the complainant had stopped asking her readers to vote for her, which explained why there was a period of inactivity. We therefore did not consider that the removal of inactive blogs from the list of top 18 participating blogs during the competition had disadvantaged the complainant or been unfair. We considered it would have been preferable for this software issue to have been communicated to participants once I D Web became aware of it, but noted they did not intend to use the same software again if they ran the awards in future. The complainant had also raised concerns that the winner was a company employee. However, because the winner was decided by readers votes only we did not consider the awarding of a prize to a freelance blogger who had worked for the company in the past meant the promotion had been administered unfairly. We concluded the promotion did not breach the Code.
We investigated the promotion under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
8.2
8.2
Promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. Promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment.
(Sales promotions) and
8.17.1
8.17.1
How to participate
How to participate, including significant conditions and costs, and other major factors reasonably likely to influence consumers' decision or understanding about the promotion
(Significant conditions for promotions) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
