Ad description
An Instagram post by Briley Powell, seen on 11 February 2021, featured the text “£250 PLT VOUCHER! PLUS Filter by Molly-Mae Tanning Kit Beauty Works Professional Styler The White Company Seychelles Set @BRILEYPOWELL”. Below that, text stated “WIN £250 TO SPEND ON PRETTY LITTLE THING + THIS BUNDLE Give away includes £250 PLT Voucher Filter by Molly-Mae FULL tanning kit Beauty Works Professional Styler The White Company Seychelles Set OPEN INTERNATIONALLY TO WIN: Like this post Tag your bestie Share to your story (tag me) Both must be following @brileypowell Unlimited entries! The more you enter = the more chances of winning Winner announced on VALENTINE’S DAY (A MONTH TODAY) I had planned this giveaway to celebrate reaching 25K which seems a lifetime away so thought why not treat a lucky lady (or lad?!) for vday instead! GOOD LUCK ALLLL”.
Issue
The complainant, who had been notified that they had won the prize draw but had not received the prizes, challenged whether the promotion breached the Code.
Response
Ms Powell said that she offered the prize draw as a thank you to her social media followers for supporting her content and was not aware of the requirements associated with running giveaways. She said that all items except for the £250 Pretty Little Thing voucher had been posted to the winner, but that she did not have any tracking information for the packages. She said that she decided to delay sending the voucher after being contacted by the winner who said they had not received the prizes that had already been sent. She was concerned with the tone of the winner’s messages and so she reviewed their competition entry and found out that the winner had breached the entry requirements of the competition. She said the post stated that entrants and the person they tagged must have been following @brileypowell to win, but the prize winner had not been following her. She also said the winner used spam accounts to find and participate in giveaways. She therefore withheld the voucher.
The brands whose products were offered as prizes in the giveaway said they were not involved in the promotion.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promoters were required to award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days. We understood that the complainant was informed that they had won the prize draw on 14 February 2021, but they had not received the prizes. The ad stated how to enter the promotion, and when the winner would be drawn, but did not specify a date by which the prizes would be awarded, so we expected that they should therefore have been awarded within 30 days after the closing date of the promotion. We acknowledged that Ms Powell had said three of the four prizes had been posted to the winner. However, we considered it was the responsibility of Ms Powell to ensure she had sufficiently robust procedures in place to be able to show that the prizes (or reasonable equivalents) had been sent.
The Code also stated that withholding prizes was only justified if participants had not met the qualifying criteria set out clearly in the rules of the promotion. Ms Powell had said she withheld the Pretty Little Thing voucher because the winner had not followed the Instagram page @brileypowell when this was a requirement of entering the prize draw. However, she did not explain why the entry had been selected as the prize draw winner if they had not complied with the entry requirements at the time of selection. We understood the prize winner could have been following the Instagram page at the time of the prize draw entry and winner selection but have unfollowed the page by the time Ms Powell reviewed the entry. However, there was no requirement that entrants had to continue following the social media page after the competition closing date. We therefore considered that Ms Powell had not demonstrated that the winner had not complied with the prize draw entry requirements and that there was a justifiable reason for withholding one of the prizes.
We concluded that because we had not seen evidence that three of the prizes were awarded, or that withholding one of the prizes was justified, the promotion breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
8.1
8.1
Promoters are responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions.
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),
8.15.1
8.15.1
Promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days.
(Administration) and
8.27
8.27
Withholding prizes (see rules
8.1
8.1
Promoters are responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions.
.1 and
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.
.2) is justified only if participants have not met the qualifying criteria set out clearly in the rules of the promotion.
(Prize promotions).
Action
We told Briley Powell to ensure that she awarded prizes as described in her marketing communications and that prizes could not be withheld without a justified reason.
