Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The ASA and CAP consider a competition to be a promotion in which prizes are allocated on the basis of skill and for which a charge may be made or the purchase of goods or services required. Promotions for which no skill or knowledge is necessary should not be described as a competition or otherwise imply that anything but chance is involved.
Although we do not give legal advice, CAP understands that questions that nearly all respondents will get right (for example, what is the capital of England?) are unlikely to be considered as based on skill. Such questions would render the promotion a chance-based one, for which consumers should not pay to enter (see ‘Sales Promotion: Prize Draws’). Promoters should ensure their promotions are legal and should take legal advice if they are unsure. Also, they might want to check with the Gambling Commission.
Competitions should include certain terms and conditions, which are listed in rule 8.17. That list includes (but is not limited to) the need to state conditions likely to affect a consumer’s decision to participate (for example, significant conditions or costs), who can participate (are there restrictions or exclusions, for example, are the promoter’s employees and family excluded?), how to participate, and what the prizes are. See ‘Sales Promotion: Terms and Conditions’.
One promoter breached the Code because the ASA considered the judging criteria were vague and the execution of the competition was unclear. The ASA concluded that the promoter had not demonstrated that the promotion had been administered properly and had not dealt fairly with entrants (Bradford & Bingley plc, 9 July 2008). The ASA criticised a promoter because significant terms and conditions, such as having to pay a deposit, the closing date and when winners would be announced, were not given to entrants (Cover Look, 30 January 2008). (As an aside, this promotion was described as a competition but involved no skill whatsoever. It should have been described as a prize draw but the principle of the advice is the same).
Promoters should not exaggerate consumers’ chances of winning (Rule 8.20); should avoid complex rules (Rule 8.23) and should award the prizes as described or their reasonable equivalents (rule 8.15.1). Rule 8.28 lists information that must be given to participants before or at the time of entry. That list includes (but is not limited to) whether a cash alternative is available (Cover Look, 30 January 2008), the criteria on which the competition will be judged and any intention to use winners in post-event publicity.
The ASA would take a very dim view of a promoter that decided not to award prizes merely because it had not received enough entries. That would not be a good enough reason to withhold prizes (but might be acceptable if it were clearly stated at the outset). The Copy Advice team is often asked what promoters should do if they have carried out the promotion according to the terms and conditions laid down but are unable to contact the winner. Both CAP and the ASA would expect promoters to make all reasonable efforts to contact the winner but if, despite their best endeavors, they are not able to contact the winner, promoters do not need to award the prize. Some promoters award the first prize to the runner up.
In 2007, the ASA upheld a complaint against a competition to win a “£10,000 Diamond Ring” on the grounds that the promoter had been unable to provide evidence that the competition was genuine. The ASA was unable to contact the winner of the competition to confirm that she had received her prize and did not see independent documentary evidence to show that a diamond ring worth £10,000 had in fact been awarded (Steven Stone Ltd, 4 July 2007). Promoters should either publish or make available on request the name of major prizewinners.
Although it was satisfied that a competition was genuine, the ASA nevertheless criticised one promoter for delaying the judging process and for not keeping entrants abreast of that delay. It concluded that the competition had been administered poorly (Nusystems Ltd, 2 April 2008). Other promoters have been similarly criticised for changing closing dates without communicating that change to entrants and possible entrants. If the promotion is addressed to children, promoters should take extra care to be clear in their communication and administration (Bandwagon Digital Ltd, 25 July 2007).
This advice is designed to be read in conjunction with the Sales Promotion section of the CAP Code and the other entries in this advice section. Also, promoters might want to seek legal advice.
Last modified : 30 December 2011