Advertisment
A post on an influencer’s Instagram account promoted a competition for the advertiser.
Image in the post stated:
“WIN a smile makeover worth €2,500!!!!
Composite bonding and L.E.D. teeth whitening system
The wording under the image stated:
“WIN a Smile Makeover worth €2,500!!!!!!!
I am delighted to be teaming up with the incredible Alexandra Dental to give one of you the chance to win a smile makeover of your dreams.
I’d love to win this myself!!! Composite bonding plus the brand new LED teeth whitening system!!!
Alexandra Dental are the number one practice in Ireland for cosmetic dentistry, transforming smiles with the revolutionary Composite Bonding Treatment…
To Enter
Like & Share this Post
Tag X 3 Friends
Follow @alexandra_dental & (influencer’s tag)
Competition winner will be announced on 20th July on my stories.
Alexandra Dental have 4 clinics nationwide including Roscommon Town, Claremorris, Shannon & Limerick.
Cosmetic/Composite Bonding Treatment is incredibly popular as it requires:
No injections
No Destruction healthy tooth
No pain or downtime
Subject to suitability, this incredible treatment provides instant results and can be carried out on the same day.
You can message Alexandra Dental on Instagram to book your free consultation or see www.alexandradental.ie
Myself and @alexandra_dental have relaunched and made this giveaway even better, due to Covid we had to put our competition on hold in January so we have made it even bigger and better than ever.
Please be aware of any fake pages that may be made up. I will only announce the winner on my stories. I will never message you to tell you you’ve won.
Complaint
The complainant raised two issues:
Issue 1:
The complainant considered that the post was misleading as the winner did not appear to have been announced when the influencer said that it would be.
Issue 2:
The complainant objected to the practice of winners being announced in stories rather than the advertising post being edited to announce the winner.
Response
Influencer response:
The influencer said that she has posted to her stories to give an update on the competition. She said that she was not going to be choosing the winner as the dentist would do that to ensure that the correct candidate was chosen as not everyone was suitable for composite bonding.
Advertiser response:
The advertisers said that no winner had been announced (at the time of their response) for the collaboration. They said that as stated on the post, the treatment was subject to suitability. They said that they had shortlisted two entrants but on clinical inspection they were not suitable which meant they had to restart the process, which then coincided with staff leave which meant caused delays, including that they were unable to see the new entrants for consultation.
The advertisers said that they were fully aware of the urgency to have the winner announced and close off this collaboration as it was overdue. They said that they were aware that there were hopeful candidates eagerly awaiting the announcement of the winner, but as the treatment could only be carried out on a suitable client, and only the dentist could make that decision, it would be unethical for them to rush this decision to suit a deadline.
They said that the influencer whom they are collaborating with, has apologised to her followers via her Instagram story and made them aware of the delay on their behalf. They said that they were sorry to hear that a complaint was made against the post and in hindsight, it may have been more appropriate for them to have given a date for ‘Entries Close’ instead of ‘Winner Announced’. They said that they would endeavour to use this method going forward to prevent any feeling of fraudulent activity by our followers.
Finally, they stated that a winner for the competition had been agreed following inspection and they would arrange for the influencer to announce it.
Further Information:
The Executive asked the Influencer for a copy of their stories where they had updated their followers, however, the Influencer was not in a position to provide them. The Influencer did provide a copy of a screenshot of the winner announcement from their Instagram stories.
The Executive also noted that the winner had been announced on the advertisers’ own Instagram account.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld In Part
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ and influencer’s responses.
Issue 1 – Upheld:
The Complaints Committee noted that there had been a delay in the administration of the competition which resulted in the winner not being announced on the date included in the advertisement. While the advertisers and the influencer had said that an update had been provided on the competition via an Instagram story, the winner had not been announced until some two months after the advertised announcement date. In view of the delay in the announcement, the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Sections 5.5, 5.18 and 5.32 of the Code.
Issue 2 – Not Upheld:
The Complaints Committee noted that the advertisement had stated that the winner would be announced in the Influencer’s stories and the influencer had made the announcement in their stories as advertised. In the circumstances the Committee did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised in Issue 2.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertising should not reappear in its current form again.
