Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, Facebook post and website ad for the Quaker Oats ‘Show us your oats’ competition, seen in February and March 2018:
a. The TV ad, seen on 7 February 2018, featured four people preparing and plating their porridge oats, stating, “My entry's a strawberry and kiwi mix”, “This is my coconut creation”, “These are my overnight oats with raspberries and blueberries” and “Mum's entry, peanut butter and banana porridge”. The voice-over stated, “Your recipes, your rules. Share your ideas for the chance to win £10,000 every week with Quaker. Come on, show us your oats.”
b. An image on the Facebook page for Quaker Oats UK, seen on 15 February 2018, featured the text “SHOW US YOUR OATS to WIN £10,000 every week create, snap & upload a photo of your unique bowl for a chance to win”. An image beside the text showed a bowl of oats topped with seeds and bananas being captured on a mobile phone.
c. A web page on the Quaker Oats website www.quaker.co.uk, seen on 1 March 2018, featured the same text and image featured in ad (b) with an online form for competition entry submissions.
Issue
The ASA received six complaints.
1. All the complainants challenged whether the promotion was fairly administered in accordance with the judging criteria.
2. One of the complainants, who believed that the prize was not awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions, challenged whether the promotion was in breach of the Code.
Response
Walkers Snacks Ltd t/a Quaker Oats said that the promotion ran for a ten-week period from 1 January 2018. Consumers were invited to submit a photo of their porridge creations via Facebook, Instagram or the Quaker Oats promotional website. Each week the valid entries were judged according to set criteria and the winning entry was awarded a £10,000 prize. Quaker Oats explained that weekly winners were announced on Facebook, Instagram and their website and were also published online. The promotion closed on 11 March 2018.
1. They said that the promotion was open to everyone in the UK and Republic Of Ireland over the age of 18, except for those set out in the exclusions in their terms and conditions such as employees of the promotor, and they did not issue any marketing material which suggested otherwise. They said that the TV ad showed a range of people entering the promotion, and on-screen text said that entrants must be 18+ and that further terms and conditions applied, which could be found on the promotion website.
With regards to the judging of the entries, they said that a robust and fair approach was taken and entries were not judged on “professional quality”. They said that the entries were judged according to the four criteria set out in clause 14 of the terms and conditions which stated that “images submitted should be practical to make, display a balanced range of toppings, a balanced range of flavours and be visually appealing. Each of these four categories counts for 25% of the final score of an image”.
They explained that because one of the four categories related to “visual appeal”, the application of that criterion could have contributed to the winning entries having a “quality” or “professional” appearance, i.e. the hallmarks of something with visual appeal. In general terms the standard of entries was high and as a result in most weeks an entry needed to score highly in all four categories to win. That may have further contributed to the winning entries having a “quality” or “professional” appearance. In relation to the TV ad, those featured were shown to take care over the preparation and visual appeal of their entries and they considered that accurately represented the nature of the promotion and the judging criteria which would be applied. They considered that all entries were judged fairly according to the judging criteria which was clearly set out in the terms and conditions of the promotion.
2. They said that once a provisional weekly winner had been selected in accordance with the judging criteria, PromoVeritas, the agency operating the promotion, conducted various verification checks to ensure that the provisional winner and the winning entry complied with the terms and conditions of the promotion. That included checks for non-permitted photo editing, image searches to identify any prior publication, confirming the absence of any employment of the provisional winner by the promotor or its affiliated agencies and verbal and written confirmation from the entrant that the entry was their own work and had not been published previously.
They explained that following the public announcement of the winner for week five, whose entry was verified and checked, they were made aware that the image had been posted on the online blog of another individual. That had raised the issue of whether the entry complied with clause 7(a) of the terms and conditions of the promotion, which stated that entrants must only submit images of their own work and clause 7(c) which stated that entrants must not upload images which had previously been published in any medium whatsoever. They asked PromoVeritas to investigate the issue and it was directly addressed with the winner. The findings of the investigation were that the image belonged exclusively to the winner, who had previously been helped by a friend who featured the image on their blog and there was no evidence that the winning entry had been posted online prior to entry into the promotion. Both PromoVeritas and Quaker Oats were satisfied that in the circumstances it was a valid entry. They recognised that some participants may have been disappointed with the issue and they selected an additional week five winner who also received a prize of £10,000 for that week, to avoid any possible unnecessary disappointment. They considered that the selection of the week five winner and their response to the issue subsequently brought to their attention was fair and did not give grounds for unnecessary disappointment.
Clearcast said that they assessed the advertisers broadcasted ad to ensure it complied with the BCAP code and that the competition was set up to follow the terms and conditions of the promotion.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the terms and conditions referred to four judging criteria that were taken into consideration when selecting a winning entry; one of those referred to the visual appeal of the entry. We understood from the complainants that the winning entries appeared to be professional quality images submitted from industry professionals, such as bloggers. We considered although the ad (a) showed entries being carefully assembled and captured using a smartphone, this did not mean that participants could not use other devices to do so, such as a high resolution camera. We considered from the criteria set out in the terms and conditions it would be reasonable to expect that winning entries would be of a high visual quality and the terms did not expressly state that industry professionals would be excluded from entering the competition.
We therefore concluded that the promotion had been conducted in accordance with the judging criteria and was fairly administered.
On this point we investigated ads (b) and (c) 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. (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) and ad (a) 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. (Competitions), but did not find them in breach.
2.Not upheld
We understood that the advertiser had taken steps through verification from a third party to ensure that the winning entry complied with their terms and conditions. We acknowledged that in one instance further investigation was required, as an image which appeared on a blog post was owned by the entrant and it was established that there had not been a breach of the terms and conditions of the promotion. Nevertheless, we acknowledged that the promotor took further steps by announcing an additional winner for that week’s entry, to ensure that they did not cause any unnecessary disappointment to consumers. We therefore considered that the promotion was not in breach of the Code.
On this point we investigated ads (b) and (c) 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. (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) and ad (a) 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. (Competitions), but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
