Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, one of which was Upheld and one Not upheld.
Ad description
Ads for the “Spell & Go” sales promotion for Walkers Crisps, in which participants were required to spell out the name of destinations for an opportunity to win one of 20,000 holidays. The ads were seen in May 2016 in the following media:
a. The Walkers website www.walkers.co.uk.
b. On Walkers’ Twitter account.
c. On Walkers’ Facebook page.
d. On Walkers crisps product packaging.
e. A TV ad.
Issue
The 112 complainants challenged whether the promotion was being conducted equitably and fairly, and whether the promoter was dealing fairly and honourably with participants, because they:
1. believed that certain letters which were needed to spell out the holiday destinations and therefore qualify for the prizes were being withheld; and
2. reported problems relating to the on-pack promotional codes and the website’s acceptance of those codes.
Response
1. & 2. Walkers Snacks Ltd said that 20,000 holidays to 26 destinations were available to win in the promotion. Promotion participants were required to collect letters which, after creating a promotional account, they entered into a dashboard on the promotion’s website. Participants who were able to spell out the name of one of the 26 destinations won a holiday to that destination. Letters could be collected via on-pack codes or by participating in other promotional mechanics via Walkers Snacks’ social media pages, ‘Ad shells’ (an interactive billboard), TV ads and a national newspaper.
Walkers Snacks said that all 26 destinations included at least one of the letters “C”, “D”, or “K” (“Type 1” letters), and they had ensured that sufficient quantities of those letters were in circulation along with sufficient numbers of the remaining “Type 2” letters to ensure that 20,000 holidays could be won.
Each letter (including the Type 1 letters) was randomly allocated a unique 12-digit code. That allocation process was carried out by an independent third party which specialised in unique code generation and code reading technology. The codes were loaded onto SD cards which were encrypted and loaded into code readers at the factory ready to be printed onto promotional packs. Quality checks of the packs were carried out every hour, two hours and four hours to ensure that codes were printed correctly. Walkers Snacks considered those quality checks were robust. They said that on average nine million promotional packs were printed daily, and that when they responded to the ASA in mid-June, the percentage of complaints that their consumer relations team had received, which related to missing digits in the codes, equated to 0.0005% of the promotional packs printed. This was in line with the level of contacts they would expect for such a promotion. As far as they were aware, all consumers who had experienced problems with codes had had their issue resolved. Once Walkers Snacks had verified the legitimate purchase of a promotional pack and that the code was missing digits, the incomplete code was sent to the third party which generated the codes so that they could provide the complete code to the consumer.
Walkers Snacks said that when participants entered a code on the promotional website, which was built by an independent service provider, the website linked to a code validation system that validated the code; as a closed loop system that process was very secure. Once the code was confirmed as valid it was sent to a secondary verification provider. Neither the independent service provider nor the secondary verification provider received any consumer data and had no information about the participant or the codes/letters already collected in their dashboard.
Walkers Snacks explained that a ‘Random Swap’ function enabled participants to select a maximum of five letters they had collected and randomly swap them with letters in a pool of Type 2 letters allocated for that purpose. The swap was carried out automatically by a computer algorithm. They later added that they recognised that it could have been clearer how the Random Swaps operated and highlighted that they had taken action to include Type 1 letters in the Random Swaps pool of letters for the final week of the promotion.
Walkers Snacks said that a short-form version of the terms and conditions of the promotion was printed on each promotional pack, which clearly stated what consumers needed to do to enter, and which also included a note that full terms and conditions could be found on the promotional website.
They said that, up to mid-June, over 12.8 million valid codes had been entered by over 655,000 participants; all corresponding letters had been issued, including 98 letter “K”, 278 letter “C” and 252 letter “D”. They believed the total 628 of those Type 1 letters issued was in line with the ratio of forecasted wins they had estimated over the total life of the promotion, which ran until 31 July.
Responding in relation to the promotion as advertised in the TV ad only, Clearcast said that the TV ad referred to the primary promotional mechanic – “Spell a destination and win one of 20,000 holidays” – and stated the material conditions in on-screen text: “Open 10.04.16 to 31.07.16. UK & ROI, 18+. Purchase necessary. Spell one of 26 set destinations see www.walkers.co.uk for T&Cs and to play”. At the script stage of their ad approval process they were satisfied with the mechanic of the promotion as stated in the full terms and conditions, and that the rules were made clear in those terms and conditions which were displayed clearly on the promotional website.
Clearcast said that Walkers Snacks had confirmed that the correct number of letter combinations were available during the promotional period, that contact information for their customer services team was available on promotional packs and the promotional website for any consumers experiencing issues, and that a team was in place to resolve any technical errors to ensure that the integrity of the promotion was maintained. They noted that Walkers Snacks had said that all issues raised with them had been resolved.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA understood that the promotional mechanic meant that all the destinations to which holidays could be won included at least one of the letters C, D, or K, and that sufficient numbers of those Type 1 letters would be circulated during the promotional period to enable 20,000 holidays to be won, via the unique 12-digit promotional code which was randomly allocated to each letter. Participants were required to spell out the name of destinations in full and therefore all the other Type 2 letters which were needed to spell out the destination names were also in circulation, in much greater numbers than the Type 1 letters. We noted that, because there were only around 20,000 Type 1 letters in circulation during the promotional period the odds of a participant purchasing a pack of crisps with a promotional code allocated to a Type 1 letter were therefore significantly lower than the odds of purchasing a pack of crisps with a promotional code allocated to a Type 2 letter. We were satisfied that it was the case that a small proportion of the total number of letters in circulation were Type 1 letters, rather than it being the case that Type 1 letters were being withheld from the on-pack promotional mechanism.
However, with regard to the Random Swaps mechanism, which was described in the website ad (ad (a)), but not in the remaining ads, we noted that the pool of letters allocated for that purpose consisted only of Type 2 letters. The promotional website stated “A random swap means that you can swap any letter that you don’t need for a randomly generated letter … You’ll then receive a random letter that will appear in your dashboard”, and the relevant section of the Terms and Conditions of the promotion (also available via the website) stated “… a new letter is selected at random from a ‘pool’ of letters that are stored in a database … This swap is instant and all letters are treated equally”.
We considered consumers would understand from both statements in ad (a) that the Random Swap pool of letters included all letters (both Type 2 and Type 1). While we considered it unlikely that the existence of the Random Swaps mechanism would in itself influence a consumer’s initial decision to participate in the promotion, we considered it likely that it would influence their decision to continue to purchase promotional packs of crisps, based on their understanding that when swapping a Type 2 letter it was possible to receive a Type 1 letter. We acknowledged Walkers had amended the Random Swaps function to include Type 1 letters before the promotion ended. However, we considered the original limitation of the Random Swaps mechanism to only Type 2 letters was a significant condition likely to influence a consumers’ decision and understanding about the promotion, and that the omission of that significant condition from the references to the Random Swap mechanism in ad (a) was misleading and likely to cause unnecessary disappointment to consumers. We concluded the promotion breached the Code in that respect.
On this point, ad (a) 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.
8.17
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:
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
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.
On this point, we investigated ads (b), (c) and (d) under 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.
8.17
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:
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
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.
and ad (e) under BCAP Code rule
28.1
28.1
Competitions should be conducted fairly, prizes should be described accurately and rules should be clear and made known.
but did not find them in breach.
2. Not upheld
A number of complainants reported purchasing packs of crisps (either individual packets or packets in multi-packs) which had no promotional code, or where the code had missing digits, and instances where the website did not accept codes, stating that they were invalid or had been used already. We noted the regime of quality checks carried out at Walkers Snacks’ factories, and considered that, in the context that nine million promotional packs were produced every day, the overall number of issues relating to on-pack codes that had been reported to Walkers Snacks was small. We further noted that the promotional website included clear information as to what participants should do if they were having a problem entering a code, and that Walkers Snacks had set up a process for their consumer relations team to follow should participants encounter such an issue. While we acknowledged the complainants’ concerns, we considered Walkers Snacks had put in place sufficient measures to ensure that the number of errors was minimal, and that where errors occurred they could be addressed and resolved. We concluded the promotion did not breach the Code in that respect.
On this point we investigated ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) under 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.
8.17
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:
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
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.
and ad (e) under BCAP Code rule
28.1
28.1
Competitions should be conducted fairly, prizes should be described accurately and rules should be clear and made known.
but did not find them in breach.
Action
Ad (a) must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Walkers Snacks Ltd to ensure that in similar future promotions they ensured that significant conditions for all aspects of the promotion were communicated to consumers.
