Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two direct mailings, from Affordable Choices:
a. The first mailing was received in March 2016 and was in an envelope prominently labelled "BREAKING NEWS! BIG CASH WINNER IN YOUR AREA?" and "£25,000 PRIZE DRAW NEWS INSIDE! See inside now for full details!". Text inside included "As the winner, these could be the headlines that you see shortly: Mrs [recipient's name] from [recipient's area] WINS BIG in the £25,000 Affordable Choices Prize Draw! It's just the kind of thing that we all dream about finding in our letterbox, but it was [complainant's name] from [recipient's area] who was lucky enough to receive it …". The ad also included an image of a cheque for £15,000 in the complainant's name. Text further down the page included "CHECK NOW to see if this is reality", and other references to checking prize draw registration numbers against a winners list.
b. The second mailing was received on 7 April 2016. Claims included "Mrs [recipient's name] 4 of these 5 customers have already replied and received their cash". The recipient's name also appeared in a list below, next to the text "GUARANTEED: to be awarded Cash £10,000.00". Further text included "Mrs [recipient's name], the only person on the list above who is yet to receive their cash award is you! You have already been deemed the holder of the Payment Request Voucher below, which guarantees you a share of the available £10,000 cash fund" and "... will receive payment or voucher", which was less prominent.
Issue
1. A representative from East Riding of Yorkshire Council Trading Standards, who had received complaints from several consumers about ad (a), and believed it implied the recipient had won a cash prize, challenged whether it was misleading.
2. Another complainant challenged whether ad (b) misleadingly suggested the recipient had won a cash prize.
Response
1. Kingstown Associates Ltd t/a Affordable Choices believed the ad made clear that the headline, and content of the letter, referred to examples of what could be said if the recipient won the prize draw. They pointed out that text at the top of the page stated “As the winner, these could be the headlines that you see shortly” and that a red box on the left stated “CHECK NOW to see if this is reality”. An image showed a previous winner. They said the recipient’s name was included to show that those headlines could refer to them if they were a winner, and text at the bottom made clear that what winners had to do was to check their allocated prize draw registration numbers. Further text stated “Remember to verify your Registration Number on the back page”. They said they did not claim consumers had won a prize, and believed the meaning of the letter was clear enough when read in full, but that they would not use it again in its current form.
2. Affordable Choices said they guaranteed to give away the £10,000 cash prize every year and the list of names in the ad were those who had previously won cash awards. The letter said there was £10,000 to be shared equally and that the recipient would receive payment or a voucher. It was also pointed out in the mailing that the rules were available inside the envelope. Affordable Choices said the prize was genuine and the rules explained how to get a share. They said consumers only had to place an order to be eligible to enter their prize draws and cash giveaways. However, they were willing to amend the ad.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged Affordable Choices would not use the ad again. We considered the claims on the envelope, “BREAKING NEWS! BIG CASH WINNER IN YOUR AREA?” and “£25,000 PRIZE DRAW NEWS INSIDE! See inside now for full details”, were likely to be understood by recipients to mean it was possible, rather than certain, that someone in their area had won a large amount of money. However, we noted the mailing was addressed to the recipient and made several other direct references to them. We considered the prominent claim “Mrs [recipient’s name] from [recipient’s area] WINS BIG in the £25,000 Affordable Choices Prize Draw!”, and claims such as “It’s just the kind of thing that we all dream about finding in our letterbox, but it was [complainant’s name] from [recipient’s area] who was lucky enough to receive it …”, were likely to lead recipients to believe on opening the envelope that they had won a cash prize of £25,000. We considered the image of a cheque for £15,000 in the complainant’s name, which was also shown prominently, also contributed to the impression that the recipient had won a cash prize.
The mailing also included the smaller text “As the winner, these could be the headlines that you see shortly”, which we considered was likely to be understood as context for the references to the recipient having won a cash prize. However, that text appeared outside of the main border and also above the edge of the newspaper-style presentation that formed the remainder of the page, and featured the prominent claim and image. We therefore considered that, even if consumers had noticed that text, it was not sufficient to counteract the misleading impression that the recipient had won a cash prize. We considered text such as “CHECK NOW to see if this is reality”, and other references to checking prize draw registration numbers against the winners list, which appeared further down the page, could be understood as an indication that the recipient had to take further action to find out if they had won a prize, but that the message remained ambiguous. We therefore considered those references were also not sufficient to counteract the misleading overall impression.
We considered that the ad, if read particularly carefully and in its entirety, could be understood to mean the recipient had not won the cash prize stated, but instead had the opportunity to enter a prize draw. However, we were concerned that it was ambiguous overall and misleadingly placed emphasis on key phrases, which were likely to be understood to mean the recipient had won a cash prize when that was not the case. We also considered that if it was understood to mean the recipient had not already won, the mailing in any case exaggerated consumers’ chances of winning. For example, the first page implied recipients could simply “verify” their prize draw registration number overleaf whereas it was not indicated until the second page that it was necessary to place an order to have a future chance of winning, which we again considered was not sufficient to counteract the misleading earlier impression. We concluded that the mailing was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.19 8.19 Promoters must not claim that consumers have won a prize if they have not. The distinction between prizes and gifts, or equivalent benefits, must always be clear. Ordinarily, consumers may expect an item offered to a significant proportion of participants to be described as a ‘gift’, while an item offered to a small minority may be more likely to be described as a ‘prize’. If a promotion offers a gift to a significant proportion and a prize to a minority, special care is needed to avoid confusing the two: the promotion must, for example, state clearly that consumers “qualify” for the gift but have merely an opportunity to win the prize. If a promotion includes, in a list of prizes, a gift for which consumers have qualified, the promoter must distinguish clearly between the two. and 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
We acknowledged Affordable Choices were willing to make changes to the ad. We noted the recipient’s name appeared in a list with four other people, alongside the text “GUARANTEED: to be awarded Cash £10,000.00” and that it was stated that they were the only person in the list not to have received their cash award. We considered that, in conjunction with various other references (such as “[recipient’s name] holder of Payment Voucher No. … will receive a payment”, “Payment will be made following the return of your Payment Request Voucher” and “YES [recipient’s name], you will receive a cash award!”), was likely to be understood by recipients to mean they had won a £10,000 cash prize.
The ad also included less prominent references, such as “… will receive payment or voucher” (with “or voucher” being in smaller text), and indications that the £10,000 prize fund would be shared. However, they were less frequent than the references to winning and we again considered they were not sufficient to counteract the misleading overall impression that the recipient had won a prize. In addition, we considered the mailing implied recipients had only to return the payment request voucher to receive the cash they had won. However, we understood they instead had to place an order to have a chance of winning in future. For the reasons given, we concluded that the mailing was misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 8.19 8.19 Promoters must not claim that consumers have won a prize if they have not. The distinction between prizes and gifts, or equivalent benefits, must always be clear. Ordinarily, consumers may expect an item offered to a significant proportion of participants to be described as a ‘gift’, while an item offered to a small minority may be more likely to be described as a ‘prize’. If a promotion offers a gift to a significant proportion and a prize to a minority, special care is needed to avoid confusing the two: the promotion must, for example, state clearly that consumers “qualify” for the gift but have merely an opportunity to win the prize. If a promotion includes, in a list of prizes, a gift for which consumers have qualified, the promoter must distinguish clearly between the two. (Prize promotions).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Kingstown Associates Ltd t/a Affordable Choices not to state or imply in future that consumers had won a prize if they had not, and not to misleadingly exaggerate consumers’ chances of winning prizes.
