Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two Instagram posts by Collab House Giveaways:
a. The first post, posted 27 April 2022, included an image of the influencer Ellie O’Donnell holding a dog standing behind a number of designer items and packaging including a Louis Vuitton bag, Christian Dior bag, Saint Laurent bag and an Apple laptop. The post included the caption “OMG we’ve teamed up with @missellie_o & Marbie on this HUGE G.I.V.E.A.W.A.Y […] We have teamed up with our faves to give one of our lovely followers all of these amazing prizes! (Excluding Marbie) How to enter 1 Follow @collabhousegiveaways and EVERYONE THEY ARE FOLLOWING 2 Tag a friend. 3 Share on story for bonus entry The winner will be announced on the 8th May. T&Cs apply […]”.
b. The second post, posted 3 May 2022, included an image of the influencer Kady McDermott sat next to a number of designer items including a Balmain bag, Louis Vuitton bags, an iPad Pro, an Apple laptop, a Dyson hairdryer and Benefit makeup. The post included the caption “ANDDDD WE’RE LIVE WITH @kadymcdermott OMG H U G E G I V E A W A Y […] we are going to give one of our lovely followers all of these amazing prizes! How to enter 1 Follow @collabhousegiveaways and EVERYONE WE ARE FOLLOWING 2 Tag a friend. Easy! The winner will be announced on the 15th May. T&C’s apply […]”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the promotions in ads (a) and (b) had been administered fairly, because they understood:
1. that the list of profiles that Collab House Giveaways followed changed during the promotional periods; and
2. no announcement confirming the winners had been published and that the prizes had not been awarded.
Response
Collab House Ltd t/a Collab House Giveaways did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Collab House Ltd t/a Collab House Giveaways’ lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. It also stated that promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment and should not give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint.
We understood that the list of profiles that Collab House Giveaways followed changed during promotional periods. It was one of the entry requirements of the promotions in ads (a) and (b) that participants must be following all the profiles that Collab House Giveaways followed. We therefore considered that an entry that was valid, because they followed all the profiles at the time they entered the promotion, may subsequently be invalid. We had not seen any evidence to show that changes to the list of profiles Collab House Promotions followed during the promotional period did not impact on entrants to the promotions. In the absence of that information, we concluded that the promotions had not been administered fairly and were in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ads 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) and 8.14 8.14 Promoters must ensure that their promotions are conducted under proper supervision and make adequate resources available to administer them. Promoters, agencies and intermediaries should not give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint. (Administration).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promoters must either publish or make available information that indicated that a valid award took place. It also stated that promoters must award prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days.
We understood that Collab House Giveaways had not announced the winners of the promotions in either ad (a) or (b). We had not seen any evidence showing that the winners had been announced and that prizes had been awarded. In the absence of that information, we concluded that the promotions had not been administered fairly and were in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ads 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.
8.15.1
8.15.1
Promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days.
(Promotional marketing) and
8.28.5
8.28.5
Promoters must either publish or make available information that indicates that a valid award took place – ordinarily the surname and county of major prizewinners and, if applicable, their winning entries. At or before the time of entry, promoters must inform entrants of their intention to publish or make available the information and give them the opportunity to object to their information being published or made available, or to reduce the amount of information published or made available. In such circumstances, the promoter must nevertheless still provide the information and winning entry to the ASA if challenged. The privacy of prizewinners must not be prejudiced by the publication of personal information and in limited circumstances (for example, in relation to National Savings) promoters may need to comply with a legal requirement not to publish such information.
(Prize promotions).
Action
We told Collab House Ltd t/a Collab House Giveaways not to change the profiles that they followed during a promotional period if it was an entry requirement for entrants to follow all the profiles they followed, unless they could demonstrate that this did not impact on entrants to the promotion. We also told them to ensure that prizes were awarded as described in marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days, and to publish or make available information that indicated that a valid award took place.
