Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for the Cadburys 'Match and Win Big!' promotion, www.matchandwin.cadburyfc.com, seen in August and October 2021. At the top of the page, various club crests for football teams from the Premier League, the Scottish Premiership and the English Football League cycled in and out of sight. A selection of Cadbury’s products were pictured in a stadium-esque setting. Accompanying text stated “MATCH & WIN BIG! VIP MATCH TICKETS & TV PACKAGE BUNDLES + 1000s OF CLUB SHOP VOUCHERS’ above an ‘ENTER NOW’ button. Further text stated ‘MATCH & WIN BIG HAS LANDED … and this year, it’s our BIGGEST season ever!”
Further down the page, under the heading “PRIZES”, text stated “If your prediction comes in, you’re guaranteed to win a cracking club prize. With millions of prizes to give away, you could bag anything from club shop vouchers to matchday tickets – or even a VIP matchday experience”. Under this, a box with the heading “CLUB SHOP VOUCHERS”’ contained text which stated “We’ve got THOUSANDS of £10/ €10 and £5/ €5 club shop vouchers up for grabs! From shirts and shorts, to cups and keyrings… it’s time to get kitted-out in your teams colours”.
At the bottom of the page, under the heading “HOW DOES IT WORK?”, text stated “1 Buy any promotional Cadbury product … 2 Enter the barcode and batch code (found on the back) … 3 Match your predictions to a real result that weekend and win! … 4 Winners are announced every Thursday for the previous week’s games”. An image of tickets, with the club crests of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur football clubs, accompanied that last step.
Issue
The ASA received two complaints:
1. Compers News Magazine, who believed the ad did not make clear that postage costs applied to purchases from club shops, challenged whether the ad was misleading.
2. A member of the public, who believed the ad did not make clear that the club shop voucher prize was only available at six of the 19 participating clubs, also challenged whether the ad was misleading.
Response
1. Mondelez UK Ltd t/a Cadbury said that the terms and conditions (T&Cs) of the promotion clearly stated that the “winner of the vouchers are responsible to pay their own postage and packaging on any purchases”. They believed the T&Cs of the promotion made it sufficiently clear that if an e-voucher was won, the individual e-voucher was subject to the relevant T&Cs of the relevant club shop. They said that the specific club shops T&Cs were decided by their partner football clubs, including any postage and packaging fees.
Cadbury said that as the prize offered had been an e-voucher, that in providing such to winners they considered that they had fulfilled their obligation to the consumer. They also believed that a winner of an e-voucher would not need to spend as much as they had won on postage and packaging fees in order to take advantage of the promotion.Cadbury said that they had explained how to redeem the e-voucher and the T&Cs that were involved, and that when an e-voucher was sent to winners, a link to the specific T&Cs of the relevant club shop was also included in the correspondence. They also said that the postage costs charged by their partner clubs’ webstores were set and controlled by the individual clubs, and ranged from £2.99 to £5 depending on the organisation. Cadbury pointed out that some clubs offered free postage if the order reached a certain threshold, or at certain times of the year, and that the e-vouchers could have been redeemed against the cost of more expensive items.
Cadbury highlighted that the stores of Tottenham Hotspur, Arsenal and Liverpool contained 600 official club merchandise items that could have been purchased for under £5. They said that a consumer who had won a £5 or £10 e-voucher could have selected such an item to redeem their e-voucher against them. Cadbury said that if they had won £10, they could pay the postage and packaging decided by the club, and still potentially be within their e-voucher’s limit. They also said they understood that some participating clubs allowed consumers to put the e-vouchers towards the postage costs, and some did not.
2. Cadbury said that the club shop e-vouchers were only available for six teams (Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool) because they were the only clubs who had the capabilities of processing e-vouchers. They said that other partner clubs, including the club at which the complainant had wished to use their e-voucher, did not offer that service at the time of the promotion.
Responding to comments that the crests of clubs that were not included in the e-voucher promotion were nonetheless prominently displayed on the promotional website, and were listed as partner clubs in promotional materials, Cadbury said that, because some of the prizes were hospitality and match day tickets, it was appropriate and relevant to include those crests. They said that imagery on the depiction of the e-vouchers on the website also only depicted the crests of the clubs that were participating in the e-voucher aspect of the promotion.Cadbury also said that prize winners who selected a club shop e-voucher were asked to choose a club from a drop-down list, which only included the participating clubs. Those clubs were listed in the T&Cs on the website, which needed to be accepted before participants could enter.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promoters were responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions, and that promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information is likely to mislead. That could include how to participate, including significant conditions and costs, and other major factors reasonably likely to influence consumers' decision or understanding about the promotion.
We understood that the e-vouchers were only redeemable online, and could not be used in physical stores relating to the participating clubs. We also understood that the postage costs of participating clubs were between £2.99 and £5, and that the e-vouchers came in either £5 or £10 denominations. We considered that postage costs were likely to take up a significant amount of any e-voucher prize, especially if winners did not intend to buy a product that exceeded the cost of the e-voucher. We also understood that some clubs did not allow the e-voucher to be used towards postage costs, and therefore in those cases, consumers would always have to pay to use the voucher. For those reasons, we considered that this information was likely to influence a consumer’s decision about whether or not to participate in the promotion and that such significant conditions should have been stated sufficiently clearly in any ads relating to the promotion.
The ad itself did not include information that postage costs applied to purchases using e-vouchers. However, we noted that the T&Cs of the promotion stated that e-voucher prizes were subject to the participating individual club shop’s T&Cs, and that all purchases made using the e-vouchers would be subject to postal charges, the cost of which would depend on the football club itself. We acknowledged that the T&Cs of the promotion were linked to from the main page. However, we considered that the link, which was at the bottom of the page and in a smaller typeface than the main body of text, was not prominently displayed. In any case, we considered that the information should have been presented clearly in the ad itself.
Because the promotional website did not clearly state that purchases using e-voucher prizes could be subject to postage costs, and because we considered that to be information which was likely to influence a consumer’s decision to participate in the promotion, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising), and
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).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information was likely to mislead.
The promotional webpage did not state that the e-voucher prizes were limited to only six clubs. Furthermore, at the top of the website a banner containing the various clubs involved in the wider promotion cycled through images of the club crests of all the teams participating in the wider promotion, and was not limited to the six clubs participating in the e-voucher promotion. In the section of the website covering e-vouchers, text stated only that there were thousands of vouchers to be won and concluded “it’s time to get kitted-out in your team’s colours”.
For those reasons, we considered consumers would understand that the e-voucher prize could be used at all the clubs’ shops associated with the promotion. It was likely to be material to consumers that some clubs, while clearly referred to on the website and promotional materials, were in fact not eligible for the e-voucher promotion.
We acknowledged that the T&Cs of the promotion were linked to from the main promotion page and stated the limitations on the e-voucher promotion. However, we considered that the link, which was at the very bottom of the page and in a smaller typeface than the main body of text, was not prominently displayed. In any case, we considered that the information should have been presented clearly in the ad itself.
Because we considered that the ad omitted material information that the e-vouchers were only available for six teams, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising), and
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 promotion must not be run again in its current form. We told Mondelez UK Ltd t/a Cadbury to ensure that future promotions did not mislead by omitting significant terms and conditions or material information.
