Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Five Instagram stories, two Instagram posts, and the Raffleaid website:
a. Four Instagram stories from Tyne-Lexy Clarson’s account, seen on 11 January 2022, featured footage of Tyne-Lexy Clarson talking about the “Raffleaid Live Draw”, saying, “I’m giving away £1,000, £2,500. There is a jackpot prize of £7,500 and the odds tonight are incredible. There’s thousands of tickets left. I think they’re all about 50% sold, that’s it! And they’re guaranteed to be given away at 9:30pm, so your chances of winning tonight are better than they usually are, which is always amazing anyway, but tonight your chances of winning are incredible. So, make sure you do hit the link to head over to my website to go and secure some entries … Again incredible, incredible odds tonight … Your chances of becoming one of my Raffleaid winners tonight have never, ever been better so make sure you do get involved and fingers crossed you’re one of my lucky winners later on tonight.” Text that stated, “BEST ODDS EVER TONIGHT [star-eyes emoji] [moneybag emoji]”, “£1000, £2500, £7500 ONLY 50% SOLD [money bag emoji] [siren emoji]”, “GUARANTEED DRAW 9:30PM TONIGHT”, and “HUGE CHANCE OF WINNING TONIGHT [trophy emoji]”, was superimposed on the stories, along with a link to “RAFFLEAID.CO.UK” and the tag “@RAFFLEAID”.
b. An Instagram Story from Tyne-Lexy Clarson’s account, seen 11 January 2022, featured a screenshot of a prize draw listing on the Raffleaid website with superimposed text that stated, “INSANE ODDS TONIGHT”. The listing featured an image of £50 notes sprawled out on a surface with text that stated “DRAW TODAY, £7,500 TAX FREE CASH”, a countdown clock, and a bar that showed the proportion of tickets sold. Further text stated, “£4.88 PER ENTRY Win £7,500 Tax Free Cash [SUPER LOW ODDS]”. Text that stated, “RAFFLEAID.CO.UK” linked users to the Raffleaid website.
c. An Instagram post from the Raffleaid account, seen 31 January 2022, featured a screenshot of a prize draw listing on the Raffleaid website with text that stated, “£25,000 TAX FREE CASH BUY 3 + FOR £3.99 EACH”. Further text stated, “DRAW TONIGHT” and was accompanied by a countdown clock and a bar that showed the proportion of tickets sold. The caption stated, “Draw Today! Insane odds [fire emoji] Don’t miss out www.Raffleaid.co.uk”.
d. An Instagram post from the Raffleaid account, seen 12 May 2022, featured an image that listed ten individuals as “FREE TICKET WINNERS” and a further individual as a “£10 SHARE WINNER”. Large text that stated “CONGRATULATIONS” was included at the bottom of the image alongside the Raffleaid logo. The post’s caption stated “Free ticket winners! Well done you’ll all get a free ticket into next Thursdays [sic] £7,500 [trophy emoji][star-eyes emoji] www.Raffleaid.co.uk”.
e. The Raffleaid website homepage, raffleaid.co.uk, seen 31 January 2022, included a section headed “WHO ARE RAFFLEAID?” which included the text “We aim to not only change people’s lives with our luxury prizes but to also change lives with our charitable donations [...] we run special charity raffles from which we donate the profits to a meningitis charity, one very close to our heart”. Clicking a link that stated “Find out more about what Raffleaid aims to do for charity” led consumers to a page that featured text that stated “[…] we realised how much people can rely on charities. This is why we make donations as and when we can to our chosen charity Meningitis Now”. The page included two images of Tyne-Lexy holding large cheques made out to Meningitis Now.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
1. ads (a), (b) and (c) irresponsibly exaggerated consumers’ chances of winning;
2. ad (d) misled regarding the option to enter via a free entry route, because it did not make the free entry route clear and the claimed giveaway of “FREE TICKETS” implied that free entry was only available via that route instead of being a feature of all Raffleaid draws; and
3. the name “Raffleaid” and ad (e)’s references to charitable donations complied with the Code.
Response
1. Clarson Ltd t/a Raffleaid believed that ads (a) to (c) gave factual information about the advertised draws by describing the prizes on offer and showing the number of entries at the time of posting. They highlighted that, because winning entries were randomly selected from the pool of all entries, draws with fewer entries offered participants a higher chance of winning. At the time each ad was posted, the number of entries to the draw it promoted was significantly lower than the maximum. That was explained by Ms Clarson in ad (a) and was also indicated by the bar included in ads (b) and (c).
They believed viewers would understand claims that referenced low odds, or high chances of winning, as being based on that low number of entries, which the ads called attention to. Because that number directly influenced participants’ chances, they believed ads (a) to (c) did not exaggerate consumers’ chances of winning.
2. Raffleaid stated that they used ‘free ticket’ giveaways of the kind promoted in ad (d) to show their gratitude to those who regularly participated in Raffleaid draws. Those giveaways were unrelated to the postal free entry route. They emphasised that free entry via the postal route was a feature of all Raffleaid draws and said that option was advertised prominently on their website.
3. They referred to a definition of “aid” as “to help someone in the achievement of something”. The word was included in “Raffleaid”, because Raffleaid draws helped entrants win prizes. They added that the Raffleaid website’s references to donations to Meningitis Now had been included with the aim of supporting the charity and increasing its visibility. However, they indicated their willingness to remove ad (e)’s references to charitable activity.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promoters must not exaggerate consumers' chances of winning prizes.
In ad (a), Tyne-Lexy stated, "… your chances of winning are incredible … incredible, incredible odds" and the superimposed text included "HUGE CHANCE OF WINNING TONIGHT". Ad (b) featured superimposed text that stated "INSANE ODDS TONIGHT" and "SUPER LOW ODDS" while ad (c) included "Insane odds [fire emoji]". The ASA considered those elements were likely to give consumers the impression that their chances of winning the advertised promotion were very high.
We acknowledged that ads (a) to (c) each included factual information about the proportion of tickets sold, and that, to those consumers somewhat familiar with the mechanics underlying Raffleaid promotions, that information might provide an indication of how the odds offered at the time the ad was posted compared to those of other Raffleaid draws with higher tickets sales. While we considered that information itself, if presented in a neutral tone, was unlikely to breach the Code, we considered it was insufficient to counter the impression given by the claims.
We noted that, for the advertised promotions, the winning entry was randomly selected out of several thousand. Because of that, we considered that the odds of a particular entry winning were very low. On that basis, we considered that the ads exaggerated consumers’ chances of winning.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 8.20 8.20 Promoters must not exaggerate consumers' chances of winning prizes. They must not include a consumer who has been awarded a gift in a list of prize winners. (Prize promotions).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where their omission was likely to mislead. Significant information could include information about any free-entry route, which should be explained clearly and prominently.
We understood that, notwithstanding the advertised “free ticket” giveaway, Raffleaid promotions could be entered via either a paid entry route or a postal free-entry route. The ad was posted a week before the closing date of the advertised promotion, which allowed sufficient time for free postal entries to be received. We therefore understood that, at the time the ad was posted, all potential participants had the option of participating in the promotion for free via the postal route. We considered that was significant information and that, to avoid misleading, all ads for the advertised promotion were required to present it clearly and prominently. However, ad (d) omitted to give information about the postal free-entry route.
In addition, the ad listed the “WINNERS” of a “FREE TICKET” giveaway. We acknowledged that the postal free entry route and receipt of a “free ticket” were distinct. However, we considered that distinction would not be clear to consumers unless they were aware that the promotion included a postal free-entry route. Because ad (d) did not mention the free-entry route, we considered the text “free ticket winners” implied that ticket purchase was a necessary condition of participation in the promotion. We further considered that the text which stated “CONGRATULATIONS” and “Well done!” reinforced that impression by suggesting that free entry to the promotion had been awarded as a special prize to those listed in the ad. On that basis, we considered the ad gave the impression that free entry was only available via the advertised “free ticket” giveaway, where that was not the case.
Because it omitted significant information about the promotion’s free-entry route and implied ticket purchase was a requirement of entry, we concluded that ad (d) was misleading.
On that point, ad (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
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
8.17.2
8.17.2
Free-entry route explanation
Any free-entry route should be explained clearly and prominently
(Significant conditions for promotions).
3. Upheld
We noted the word “aid” commonly featured in the names of charities and charitable events, for example “Live Aid” or “WaterAid”. In addition, while we did not consider the word “Raffle” itself implied charitable benefit, it was often applied to prize draws held in support of a specific charitable cause. For those reasons, we considered that the name “Raffleaid” in ads (a) to (e) gave the impression that all Raffleaid draws were run with the primary purpose of charitable fundraising.
In ad (e), under the heading “WHO ARE RAFFLEAID?”, text stated “We aim to not only change people’s lives with our luxury prizes but to also change lives with our charitable donations”. We considered that text reinforced the impression that charitable fundraising was Raffleaid’s primary purpose. We further considered that other text on the page, including “we run special charity raffles from which we donate the profits to a meningitis charity”, was unclear in relation to whether Raffleaid promotions benefitted charity, and did little to counter the impression given by the name.
We understood that Raffleaid was a business that profited from their promotions and that charitable fundraising was not its primary purpose. We therefore concluded that the name Raffleaid as used in the ads was misleading.In addition, because the name “Raffleaid” gave the impression that their promotions were run for the primary purpose of charitable fundraising, we considered that the Code’s requirements in relation to charity-linked promotions applied. Those requirements were that marketers claiming participation in a promotion would benefit a registered charity or cause must be able to show the ASA the formal agreement with those benefiting from the promotion, specify exactly what would be gained by the named charity or cause, and state the basis on which the contribution would be calculated. The Code also required that marketers running charity-linked promotions that stated or implied donations would be given to a charity or cause must ensure the promotion stated the total (or a reasonable estimate) of the amount the charity or cause would receive.
Ads (a) – (d) did not include any information about Raffleaid’s charitable contributions. Ad (e) featured images of cheques made out to Meningitis Now and included text that stated “… we make donations as and when we can”. While it therefore specifically mentioned Meningitis Now, Raffleaid did not provide evidence of a formal agreement with that charity, or any other. Additionally, none of the ads specified exactly what would be gained by the charity, stated the basis on which any contributions to them were calculated or the total (or a reasonable estimate of) the amount that they would receive.
For those reasons, we concluded that the name “Raffleaid” as used in ads (a) – (e) was misleading, and that those ads also omitted information about their charity-linked promotions that was required to be included by the CAP Code.
On that point, ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.33 8.33 Promotions run by third parties (for example commercial companies) claiming that participation will benefit a registered charity or cause must: 8.33.1 8.33.1 name each charity or cause that will benefit and be able to show the ASA or CAP the formal agreement with those benefiting from the promotion 8.33.3 8.33.3 specify exactly what will be gained by the named charity or cause and state the basis on which the contribution will be calculated (see rule 8.34) and 8.34.1 8.34.1 For any other promotion linked to a charity or where a third party states or implies that donations will be given to a charity or cause, the promotion must state the total (or a reasonable estimate) of the amount the charity or cause will receive. (Charity-linked promotions).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Clarson Ltd t/a Raffleaid to ensure that their future ads did not exaggerate participants’ chances of winning prizes, and that their ads clearly and prominently explained all significant conditions, including free entry routes, where their omission was likely to mislead. We also told them not to imply that their purpose was primarily charitable if that was not the case. They must ensure that future charity-linked promotions named each charity or cause that would benefit, and that they held formal agreements with those benefitting. They must further ensure that such promotions stated the total (or a reasonable estimate) of the amount the charity would receive, and its basis of calculation.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 8.17 8.17.2 8.20 8.33 8.33.1 8.33.3 8.34.1
