Ad description
The product packaging for Charlie Bigham’s lasagne, seen on 16 October 2021, featured a promotion. Text on the front of the pack stated “WIN A VW CAMPERVAN & £500 GIFT BOXES WITH BELAZU INGREDIENT CO. … Ends 10/02/22. Purchase required. See inside for details”. The inside of the pack included text that stated “If you’d like a chance of winning this prize, or to win one of 500 Belazu gift boxes instantly, simply scan the QR code on the inside of this pack”. Terms and conditions, also on the inside of the pack, stated “Open to residents of the UK, CI & IoM. Over 18s only. Main Prize Draw: 1 prize of a (used) yellow Danbury-style VW Campervan. Instant Win: 1 of 500 Belazu Gift Boxes. Scan the QR code from this pack by midday on 10/02/22 and complete the form to find out if you have won a prize instantly and to be entered into the prize draw. Purchase required. Internet access required. Max. one entry per QR code. Max. one Prize Type per person. Visit bighams.com/campervan for full T&Cs and prize details”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that only one entry per product type was allowed.Response
Bighams Ltd said that the promotion required a retail purchase, and then a visit to their website, via a QR code, where consumers submitted personal details for entry into the promotion.
On the pack labelling, text detailed basic conditions such as country of residence, purchase requirement, closing date and a request to see inside for more details. The inside of the packs stated further details of how to enter the promotion, including the text “Max. one entry per QR code” and “Max. one Prize Type per person”, and directed consumers to the website for the full terms and conditions of the promotion. The front page of the promotional website stated “You get one entry for each recipe you buy – so the more of our range you try, the more chances you have”. They said that message was communicated again in the FAQs and terms and conditions.
They accepted that the information that only one entry could be made per product type could have been communicated more clearly. They had used phrases such as “individual QR code”, “once per QR code”, “per product type” and “per recipe” interchangeably, at different points of the promotion’s entry process, which may not have been understood by every consumer. However, they believed that consumers would have known that it was rare to find unique QR codes on individual product packs due to printing costs, and would therefore have understood that only one entry could be made per product type.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that all marketing communications or other material referring to promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information was likely to mislead. That included significant conditions and costs to participation in the promotion. The ASA considered that because consumers could only enter the promotion once per product type this was a significant condition about how to participate in the promotion. This, therefore, limited consumer options for entry and because they had to make one purchase per entry, this meant some consumers would buy products specifically so they could enter the promotion.
We considered that consumers who wished to participate in the promotion would have understood from the information stated on the outside of the packaging that they must purchase a product to enter the promotion. However, it did not make clear that only one entry could be made per product type. While the outside of the packaging indicated that further information about how to enter was on the inside of the packaging, we considered most consumers were unlikely to remove the sleeve before purchase. In that context some consumers would understand that they could purchase multiple packs of the same product and enter the promotion once per pack. We therefore concluded that to avoid misleading consumers, the condition that only one entry could be made per product type should have been communicated to consumers on the outside of the packaging.
Notwithstanding that, we also considered that the wording “Max. one entry per QR code”, as stated on the inside of the packaging, would not have been adequate to convey the condition to consumers, because they were unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of the mechanics of QR codes to understand that the code might not be unique to each pack.
Given that consumers’ purchasing decisions would be affected by the condition which limited entry to the promotion to one per product type, we concluded that in the absence of that condition from the outside of the promotional pack, the ad was in breach of the Code.
The ad breached 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.
(Promotional marketing),
8.17
8.17
All marketing communications or other material referring to promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information is likely to mislead. Significant conditions or information may, depending on the circumstances, include:
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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Charlie Bighams Ltd that future promotions must make all significant conditions of the promotions sufficiently clear.
