More Questions of Comping 3.I promised last month that I would try to make progress with my ever-growing in-tray, so here are some more answers to your questions. Please keep them coming!
I live in Surrey but have a comping pal in Scotland. Is it worth having a go at Scottish competitions from Surrey?
As long as the rules of a competition don’t prohibit ‘out of area’ entries, or they’re not obstructive in other ways (you might need to collect a prize personally for example, or be obliged to attend a presentation), you have nothing to lose – and potentially plenty to gain – by giving this kind of comp a go. And if you are lucky enough to win, and this for some reason creates problems, then you simply tell them that you were staying with your comping pal (or alternatively was simply visiting the area) when you found out about the comp. Easy! I think that, in practice, if a promoter doesn’t want an ‘outsider’ to win their comp then they’ll simply ignore your entry and you’ll be none the wiser. But I’ve heard of enough winners in such circumstances over the years to make me say that it’s always worth a try.
I recently read about an instant win comp where no major prizes were awarded. Surely this is wrong. Can anyone investigate?
It’s a point that I keep hammering home in these pages, but rightly or wrongly prizes in an instant win promotion do not have to be awarded. There are, however, a couple of legal obligations that a promoter running an instant win comp must fulfil. Firstly (and most importantly), they must be able to produce an independently audited statement showing that all winning labels or game pieces were actually issued – on a fair and random basis. Secondly, there must be no ‘unreasonable or administrative barriers’ to prevent a winner finding out what they have won or claiming their prize.
This second requirement is a bit too subjective for my liking. Are the instructions for the latest Ribena promotion for example, which spell out the need for a competent adult to actually jump on the carton in a particular way in order to reveal the winning message ‘unreasonable’? Is the latest trend for having to double-check numbers on a special phone line or website an unnecessary ‘administrative barrier’?
Whatever you think, if you see the results for an instant win and they start ringing alarm bells – perhaps because of the lack of winners, or the geographical spread – which suggest that these Code requirements may not have been met, then the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) should be your first port of call. They can ask a promoter to supply the necessary evidence, and will rule on the fairness or otherwise of a promotion. The most recent instant win comp where they were asked to do this was a Doritos promotion, where the complainant challenged a “1 in 4 packs is a winner” claim, and it was then up to the promoter to prove that the claim was true. They were able to do this, very convincingly it must be said, but I would guess that there are many, many instant win promoters out there who would fail miserably. So if you feel particularly strongly about any promotion, just ask the ASA to look into it. I know that many of us don’t like complaining about comps for fear that we’re biting the hand that feeds us, but an ASA referral is not necessarily a complaint. The ASA will ask for no more paperwork than a competent promoter should have kept anyway, and if nothing else it keeps the industry on its toes.
You can contact them online at www.asa.org.uk (where you’ll also find a very easy referral form to complete), or write to them at 2 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HW.
There seems to be a lot of dubious Terms and Conditions appearing lately. How can promoters get away with it?
You gave three examples with your question, and as dodgy as I admit they sound I’m afraid that they’re all perfectly legal.
Prizes will only be awarded if entries of a sufficient quality are received.
Another subjective test, but the ASA Code states that “withholding prizes can be justified… if promoters have told consumers at the outset that entries of insufficient quality will lead to the withholding of prizes”. I’ve never known this clause to ever actually be invoked in a competition though, and I’d like to think that most promoters just put it into their T&Cs to cover themselves under the Code.
I had a conversation with a promoter recently, and apparently we’d all be amazed at how many incomplete, unreadable, uncontactable, unhygienic and, in the case of tiebreakers, downright offensive entries are received for the average competition. I think that it’s this kind of entry that the clause is designed to cover, although the wording could obviously be interpreted differently (and, sad to say, probably successfully!) by an unscrupulous promoter if they so choose.
The prize will be withdrawn if it is not claimed within 48 hours of the winner being notified.
This is a new one that has started to appear fairly recently, and I must admit that I don’t like it one bit. We’ve always had clauses along the lines of prizes being redrawn or awarded to someone else if the original winner misses out for some reason, but the latest form of words seems to suggest that prizes simply won’t be awarded at all if they’re not claimed. But again, this is allowable under the Code – “withholding prizes can be justified if participants have not met clear criteria set out in the promotional rules”. So as long as the terms are clearly laid out at the outset, it’s an acceptable practice. And there’s nothing in the Code to say that such prizes must be re-awarded if ‘reasonable efforts’ to contact a winner fail.
Once again, following on from my conversation with the promoter, we should never underestimate the number of winners who can’t be contacted, or who don’t claim their prizes. A ridiculous state of affairs for us hardened compers I know, but a fact nonetheless. So this clause could save a promoter a lot of money if they were so inclined (which, to the cynics among us, could explain why it has started to appear!) – but it’s still legal. Note, however, that the Institute of Sales Promoters (ISP) suggests that 28 days is a reasonable, ‘best practice’ period of time in these circumstances – so if you’re ever left in the lurch by a shorter timescale being imposed, then you may wish to seek ISP advice. The Compers News website has more information about the roles of the ASA and ISP, and carries links to their respective sites.
The prize will only be awarded if an all-correct entry is received.
Usually seen in an estimation comp, or an order-of-merit. As unfair as this may seem, it’s perfectly acceptable under the same Code clause mentioned above. The only obligation for a Promoter is that they clearly set out the criteria for awarding prizes in the competition rules. It’s then up to you to decide whether it’s worth entering. If you think that a task is so outlandish and unfair that to win a prize is nigh on impossible, then avoid it. Easy! Although remember that the National Lottery has probably the most ridiculous odds of all, and millions of us play that every week. The thrill of the chase? Having to be in it to win it? The final decision can only be yours, but provided the Promoter has published all of the relevant details up front, then I’m afraid they’re covered.
SMID’S GRAND SUMMER COMPETITION
I was looking through a few old wartime magazines recently, and was amazed at how many times this kind of competition cropped up. It sounds like good fun, something to do while sitting on a plane or lazing on a beach somewhere, but most importantly I don’t think that you can cheat by using a computer to help (OK – someone tell me I’m wrong!). The question is…
How many times does the letter E appear in this issue of Compers News?
Every E on every page counts (even these ones!), capitals and lower case, irrespective of size, colour, format or font. And before you all start moaning, count yourselves lucky that it’s not the Bible or the Oxford English Dictionary that you’re having to wade through, which were particular favourites with the original question setters. (I might save those until Christmas!)
Then, for a tiebreaker, please provide a “fascinating fact” in 15 words or less for the number that you’ve arrived at as your answer. The number itself counts as one ‘word’. So if, for example, your answer is 4,626, then you could tell me that the Humber Bridge is 4,626 feet long. But frankly, I’ll be looking for something much more fascinating, humorous, and contrived than that – although your fact MUST be true!
The prize is A 12-MONTH EXTENSION TO YOUR COMPERS NEWS SUBSCRIPTION, and the closing date is 31 August 2004 which gives you plenty of time to join in the fun and the winning entry will be published in the September issue.
Please send your answer and tiebreaker, along with your name and address, to “Smid’s Summer Comp” at the usual CN address. You must be a current Compers News subscriber to enter. I suppose this means that I’ll have to do a spot of counting too for judging purposes, needless to say the judge’s decision is final.
So pour yourself a cool drink, pull up a deckchair, and start counting. Good luck, and altogether now –
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK……
Smid x
|
