Big Brother's 'golden ticket' wasn't fixed, says watchdog

When Suzie Verrico won a competition run via the wrappers of chocolate bars to enter the Big Brother house this summer, the Advertising Standards Authority received a large number of complaints by competition entrants claiming that it was not a fair competition, as advertised.

The ASA oversees rules regarding what constitutes a fair lottery and whether or not lotteries are fairly advertised. It found that while some of those rules had been broken, the allegations that the competition had been rigged were unfounded.

The rules state that a draw has to be made in accordance with the rules of chance and that it must be overseen by an independent observer. It found that the draw was made in line with the rules of chance but that the independent observer did not have adequate access to the competition.

The draw was made live on television by the picking out of the winning numbered ball, which corresponded to a numbered contestant, from a machine. "The ASA noted an independent observer from Electoral Reform Services (ERS) had signed a check-sheet to show 34 individually numbered balls (one for each Golden Ticket holder) were placed in the machine, and the slow motion footage of the draw showed there were numerous different numbered balls in the machine, and the ball drawn was undoubtedly number 14 [Verrico's ball]," said an ASA ruling.

"We investigated whether the promotion was conducted in accordance with the laws of chance. On this point, the promotion did not breach CAP Code clause 35.7 (Prize promotions)."

The ASA did find, though, that the observer was not given adequate access to the draw. "We noted an independent observer was present as the balls entered the machine, but not in the period immediately before the draw or at the time the draw took place. Because we considered that an independent observer should have been present and watching throughout the process of the draw and particularly at the point the winning ball was drawn, we concluded that the draw was not conducted under the supervision of an independent observer."

Producers Endemol, broadcaster Channel 4 and confectioner Nestlé argued that the rules of Big Brother kept the observer away because outsiders cannot come into contact with contestants and that a second observer was watching the draw at home on television, but that argument was rejected by ASA which upheld the complaint that the draw was not independently observed. "We told the promoters to ensure that future promotions were carried out in accordance with the Code," said the ASA.