Print This Post
Bulletin: 16/4
Batch: 235
Reference: 25713
Product: Telecommunications
Advertiser: iD Mobile
Influencer:
Agency:
Medium: Online
Codes:ASAI Code 6th Edition: 1.6(c), 3.12, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.28
A Tweet from iD Mobile for a competition stated:
“What’s the most far-fetched thing you want? Go on, we love a challenge. #IWANTID”
A picture of a car attached to a parachute was accompanied by the following text:
“I want….
“insert the coolest thing ever”..
Tell us your craziest want & you could win it!”The entry page for the competition stated:
“’i Want…’ Competition.
Tell us what you want and we’ll make it happen!
Have you always wanted to go on a round the world Trip?
Or perhaps you always wanted to own a pink unicorn?
Well this is your chance to make it happen! Tell us what you ‘want’ below – whether it’s big or small, quirky or simple. Fill in your details and we will do the rest!”The entry page requested the entrants’ details and provided a link to the competition terms and conditions.
The complainant entered the competition, asking for a Tardis and received notification in late October that he had won. He noted a video of several winners, including himself, had been uploaded to the iD Mobile Facebook page which listed his name, county and a picture of a Tardis. When the complainant received his prize he noted that the Tardis he received was a bird feeder. He made contact with the advertiser and was advised that they had priced a Tardis but it was too expensive. He therefore considered that the advertising for the competition was misleading.
The advertisers’ stated that the entrant submitted their competition entry in August and had stated on their entry that they wanted “A Tardis for the Garden :) Please!” They said that in good faith and in the spirit of the competition they had taken on the challenge and located a bird feeder for the garden and also an additional 2/3 life size cut out for indoor use.
The Executive requested a copy of the terms and conditions of the competition and noted that the prize value was set at a maximum level of €1,000. They also noted that the terms and conditions had included the following:
“6. iD cannot guarantee that the prize will be the exact variant/colour of the prize will be available.” (sic)“7. Where prize cannot be delivered to winner, an alternative prize of similar value will be given to winner.”
Complaint upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Committee noted that the complainant had requested a Tardis for his garden and that the advertisers had made every effort to source one, however they had only been in a position to provide him with a Tardis bird feeder together with a 2/3 cut out of a Tardis for indoor use. The Committee also noted that the advertisement had invited entrants to suggest ‘far-fetched’ ideas and while they had provided a link to the terms and conditions, the advertisement had given entrants the impression that their ‘wish’ would be granted. In the circumstances the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Section 3.12 of the Code.
The advertisement must not appear in its current form again.