Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The ASA and CAP consider a prize draw to be a game in which prizes are allocated by chance and no payment is imposed to participate. CAP understands that, under the terms of the Gambling Act 2005, promoters may make the purchase of a product a requirement for entry into a prize draw providing the price of that product has not been inflated or the composition of the product has not been reduced. Previously, promoters sought to avoid running an illegal lottery by offering a “no purchase necessary” route or ”free entry” route but the Gambling Act does not require promoters to do so if the main entry route does not constitute “payment” as defined by the Act (see ‘Sales Promotion: Lotteries’, ‘Sales Promotion: Free-entry Routes’, and ‘Betting and Gaming: Lotteries’). Essentially, the Copy Advice team believes that consumers should not incur a cost to participate if that payment is above the standard rate of postage, telephone call or SMS.
The term “prize draw” includes a variety of promotional mechanics:
In traditional prize draws, the winner is chosen at random from all valid entries returned by participants.
In “pre-selected winner” promotions, the promoter normally chooses the winning number at random from all possible winners (usually before direct mailings or product packs are distributed, each bearing a unique code or other form of identification) and only later determines whether the entry containing that number has been returned or entered by the consumer. So, prizes are awarded only to those who return the winning code or symbol to the promoter within the promotional period. Prizes are not, therefore, necessarily awarded but the promoter may choose to allocate the prizes using a traditional prize draw to those who have entered.
An “Instant win” promotion is one in which winning tickets are randomly and securely distributed in or on promoted products and consumers get their winnings at once or know immediately what they have won and how to claim it without delay, unreasonable cost or administrative barriers.
Other promotions are normally operated via codes on pack entered by a secondary route (for example, text or web) and winners are selected according to a pre-set formula, for example 1 in 100; they are not instant-win promotions.
The ASA receives a significant number of complaints about prize draws and CAP has drawn up a Help Note on Promotions with Prizes to guide promoters on how to get it right. Because of the often limited space and the mechanic that several marketers have chosen to use, scratchcards can be especially problematic (Mediaprom Ltd, 30 April 2008 and 19 April 2006).
Promoters should ensure that prizes are awarded in accordance with the laws of chance and under the supervision of an independent observer (Nestle UK Ltd, 13 September 2006). See ‘Sales Promotion: Independent Judges and Observers’. In June 2008, the ASA upheld complaints about a magazine promotion that had been poorly administered. Because of unintentional drawing before the closing date, not all entrants were included in the draw. Consequently, the ASA concluded that not all entrants were given an equal chance of winning and the promoters had not dealt fairly and honourably with entrants (Northern & Shell plc, 4 June 2008).
The ASA would take a very dim view of a promoter that decided not to award prizes merely because it had not received enough entries. That would not be a good enough reason to withhold prizes (but might be acceptable if it were clearly stated at the outset). The Copy Advice team is often asked what promoters should do if they have carried out the promotion according to the terms and conditions laid down but are unable to contact the winner. Both CAP and the ASA would expect promoters to make all reasonable efforts to contact the winner but if, despite their best endeavors, they are not able to contact the winner, promoters do not need to award the prize. Some promoters award the first prize to the runner up.
Promoters should not imply recipients have won if they have not (Mediaprom Ltd, 19 April 2006 and 30 April 2008, and Freemantle O’Connor & Associates, 22 February 2006). Significant qualifying text should be given similar prominence to main claims, for example, “MR X WILL DEFINITELY WIN A PRIZE if he has and returns the winning entry” is likely to be considered misleading. Qualifying claims can expand on primary claims, or qualify them in other ways but should not contradict the impression a consumer might get from reading the primary claim in isolation (see Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification). Promoters should avoid confusing language and syntax elsewhere in the marketing communication (Rules 8.19 & 8.23). Legal-sounding jargon is likely to confound less savvy recipients (International Property Disposition of Radstock, 6 August 2008).
Promoters should ensure that their promotional material contains the main terms and conditions (Ts & Cs) attached to the prize draw or competition. Participants should be informed up front, and certainly before any financial outlay, of certain major conditions (Cover Look, 30 January 2008) including the closing date (Kenwood Travel Ltd, 23 April 2008), the promoter’s name and address, the number and nature of prizes (HHS Trading (UK) plc, 17 August 2005) and any restrictions. Rule 8.17 contains a handy check-list.
Promoters should ensure that major Ts & Cs can be retained or are available throughout the promotion. One promoter was criticised for printing Ts & Cs on only the envelope because it could easily be discarded by the recipient (HHS Trading (UK) Ltd, 20 June 2007). See ‘Sales Promotion: Terms and Conditions’.
Promoters should avoid using complex rules for their prize draws and competitions. More minor terms and conditions (see Rule 8.28), for example when prizewinners will receive their prizes, how and when winners will be notified of results and whether a cash alternative may be substituted for a prize, should be available before or at the time of entry but need not form part of the initial marketing communication if it is short. For example, promoters often want to direct entrants to their website for the full terms and conditions; if the major conditions are clear from the initial marketing communication, that is likely to be acceptable.
Changing Ts & Cs during the promotion should be avoided at all costs. By doing so, promoters risk being criticised for not dealing fairly or honourably with consumers and causing unnecessary disappointment (Morgan Import 1964 Ltd, 25 October 2006).
Marketers may promote the same prize draw or competition using different prizes (for example, different prize amounts) and different closing dates so long as they make clear the identity of the promotion being promoted, that consumers could receive future opportunities for the same promotion and that the prize value promoted could change. It is important that consumers do not wrongly believe either they are entitled to enter different promotions for different prizes or they have more chances of winning than they do.
Prizewinners should usually receive their prize within 30 days (Rule 8.28.3) and promoters should either publish or make available on request the name and county of major prizewinners (Rule 8.28.5).
Promoters should take care not to imply that respondents are luckier than they are, for example, by blurring the distinction between a gift and a prize (UK Incentives & Promotions Ltd, 7 November 2007; Damartex UK Ltd, 17 January 2007; Morgan Import 1964 Ltd, 25 October 2006, and Mediaprom Ltd, 19 April 2006), wrongly using the words “finalist” or “congratulations” (Call Alliance Services Hotline, 20 August 2003) or implying consumers have won if they have not (Popular Prizes, 23 March 2005). See ‘Sales Promotion: Implying Recipients Are Luckier Than They Are’.
This advice is designed to be read in conjunction with the Sales Promotion section of the CAP Code and the other entries in this advice section. Also, promoters might want to seek legal advice.
Last modified : 10 January 2012