Print This Post
Advertiser: Click and Go
Medium: Internet (Social Media)
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 2.4(c), 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, 5.32, 5.33, 5.34, 5.35
A competition by Click and Go referred to the following:
“Holiday Snaps Competition
Click and Go Holiday Snaps Competition
Welcome to the inaugural click&go holiday snaps competition!
We love to travel, to explore new and old destinations and to make memories and capture those perfect moments. We want you to share your best”.
There were three categories launched on separate dates throughout the duration of the competition with two categories in each competition as follows:
“Christmas Markets & Winter Sun
City Breaks & USA Hols
Summer Sun & Cruise Hols”
The Grand Prize attached to the competition was “a break for 2 to New York”.
The terms and conditions attached to the competition provided that:
“Grand Prize: The Grand Prize is a break for 2 to New York. This includes return flights and 3-nights accommodation in Manhattan for 2 people. The Grand prize is chosen from the shortlisted entrants from all categories. It excludes those who have already won a quarterly city break prize.
Category Prize: Each category winner will receive a €100 Click&Go Holiday Voucher.
Quarterly Prize: Each quarter those shortlisted in the previous categories will be entered into a raffle to win a European city break.”
The complainant said that the Competition was advertised in December 2018. There was to be a quarterly prize draw and an overall winner to be announced on December 12, 2019 (as per the terms and conditions). The complainant said that they had not seen any quarterly or over-all prize winner announcements.
The advertisers said they ran 3 competitions, with two categories in each competition as follows:
Christmas Markets & Winter Sun
Launched: 13th December 2018
Winners announced: 1st February 2019
City Breaks & USA Hols
Launched: 4th February 2019
Winners announced: 6th June 2019
Summer Sun & Cruise Hols
Launched: 6th June 2019
Winners announced: 11th September
There was also an overall prize for 2 people to New York. This included return flights and 3 nights’ accommodation in Manhattan for 2 people.
They said that for their last competition (cruise category) they had no entries and they had therefore pushed the last two prizes (the cruise holiday and the overall prize trip to New York) categories out by a month in the hope that they would get more entries, unfortunately this had not been the case.
The advertisers pointed out that there had only been 40 entrants across the course of the competition (approx.8 entrants per category) and with such low levels of participation, they considered the competition for the last two categories i.e. The Cruise Category and the overall prize for two people to New York to be invalid.
The advertisers provided copies of the posts where the winners had been announced in the categories which had gone ahead. They also confirmed that all winners had won a €100 Click&Go holiday voucher.
Complaint upheld in part.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Committee noted that the Cruise holiday prize had not been awarded because there had been no entrants for that element of the competition. They did not consider that where there were no entrants to a competition, the non-awarding of a prize constituted a breach of the Code.
However, the entrants for the Grand Prize, a trip for two to New York, were to have been drawn from the shortlisted entrants from the previous categories, excluding those who had already won a quarterly city break prize.
The Committee noted the Code requirement that “a poor response or a low level of entries is not an acceptable basis for extending the duration of a promotion or withholding prizes unless the promoters have explicitly reserved their right from the outset…”. (Section 5.33).
The Committee noted that the Terms and Conditions of the Competitions had not provided that a low level of entries was an acceptable basis for withholding a prize and as the Grand Prize had not been awarded on that basis, they considered that the competition had breached Section 5.33 of the Code.
Action required: The Committee advised the advertisers to exercise greater care if running similar competitions in the future and to ensure that prizes advertised are awarded to participants in line with requirements of the Code.