Print This Post
Bulletin: 15/5
Batch: 230
Reference: 24482
Product: Competition
Advertiser: Heineken
Influencer:
Agency: Rothco
Medium: Internet (Social Media)
ASAI Code 6th Edition: 1.6(c), 3.34, 3.35
A competition hosted on Twitter for Heineken Ireland offered consumers the opportunity to:
“Predict the score for the Champions Cup Final between Toulon and Clermont.
Get within 10 points and you're in the draw to win a season ticket for your province for 2015/16 European Cup Rugby. Any more than that, we'll ask you to Tweet a forfeit and #runwithit for 80 minutes to stay in the game. Good Luck!”
Those who wished to take part in the competition had to click on the “Ok, Let’s Go” button to enter their score predictions.
The complainant queried the selection process for selecting the winner of the competition. He said in the semi-final of the competition one twitter account participant was only two points away from the winning team and correct score, however, this person had not been chosen as the winner.
In the final of the competition the complainant said that another participant had only been one point away in their predications, and yet had not been chosen as the winner. He said that the overall winner had not predicted the winning team and was eight points away from the winning score. He considered that the advertisers had been selective in their chosen winner and therefore the competition had not been conducted in a fair manner.
The advertisers’ agency said that the competition had been part of their #RunWithIt campaign in which they encouraged people to step out of their comfort zone for the chance to be rewarded. With this in mind they encouraged people to predict the score for the upcoming European Rugby Champions Cup (ERCC). Those who got within 10 points of the score were entered into the draw. They also offered those who had guessed outside the 10 point mark, the opportunity to re-enter the competition through an additional mechanism. This required those participants to spin an on-line wheel and tweet something controversial; depending on the response they received to their tweet, the decision was then taken as to whether or not to allow them back into the draw.
The agency also said they had never stated that the entrant who predicted the closest to the winning score would be the overall winner. They had, however, stated that those who got within 10 points of that score would be entered into a draw. The end score of the game was Clermont 18, Toulon 24. The winner had predicted the score to be Clermont 18, Toulon 16. As the winner had been within eight points of the score he had been allowed to enter the draw, which resulted in him being the overall winner. The advertisers said that the winner had been chosen at random from the final participants.
Conclusion: Complaint Not Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the agency’s response. The Committee noted that the competition had been run in accordance with the published terms and conditions. They said that it was clear that guessing a score within a range was a requirement to enter the draw, with an alternative entry mechanism also provided. Those who gained entry via the two mechanisms were finalists in the draw. In the circumstances they did not uphold the complaint.
Action Required: No further action was required in this case.