Ad description
A tweet from the Twitter account of Stephen Bear (@stephen_bear) seen on 25 August 2021, stated “I will be giving away $100,000 in 24 hours. To enter… 1. Say three nice things about me. 2. Like this post. 3. Retweet this post. 4. FOLLOW 5. hashtag “#internationalplayboy” after your comment”.
Issue
The complainants, who believed the winner to be the partner of Stephen Bear, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly, and the prize was awarded to a genuine entrant, in accordance with the laws of chance.Response
Stephen Bear did not respond to the ASA’s enquires.Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by Stephen Bear’s 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 him of his responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries and told him to do so in the future.
The CAP Code stated that promoters of prize draws must ensure that prizes were awarded in accordance with the laws of chance and, unless winners were selected by a computer process that produced verifiably random results, by an independent person, or under the supervision of an independent person. They must also award the prize as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days.
We understood that the Twitter prize draw was to win $100,000 and that, in order to enter, entrants were required to ‘like’ and ‘retweet’ Stephen Bear’s post, follow him on Twitter and say three nice things about him and include the hashtag “#internationalplayboy” at the end of their comment.
However, we were not provided with any information about how the promotion had been administered, how a winner had been selected, nor evidence which showed that the prize of $100,000 had been awarded. In particular, we had not seen evidence that a selection pool of valid entries had been established consisting only of those entries that met the various requirements set out in the ad, that a winner had been selected in accordance with the laws of chance and that they had been awarded their prize within 30 days. In the absence of that, we concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and breached of the Code.
The promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
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),
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),
8.14
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.
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
8.24
8.24
Promoters of prize draws must ensure that prizes are awarded in accordance with the laws of chance and, unless winners are selected by a computer process that produces verifiably random results, by an independent person, or under the supervision of an independent person.
(Prize promotions).
Action
We told Stephen Bear to ensure that he administered his promotions fairly in future, in particular by ensuring that he selected a winner in accordance with the laws of chance from a selection pool consisting of only valid entries (meeting the requirements of the draw) and ensuring that he awarded prizes as described in his marketing communications. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
