The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said that the
advertised criteria for winning the competition were not the same
as those used to actually judge the competition, and that it was
unclear how the early stages of the competition were judged.
B&B advertised online for entrants to its competition for
property woman of the year. It said: "Judging will be based on your
financial nous, feedback from your tenants, how long it took to
build your business, how you run it, and your personal drive and
determination to succeed. We don't want much do we?"
A woman who was shortlisted in her region but did not win the
competition complained about it, saying that she had not been asked
to provide any evidence on which judging could be based.
B&B said that it had made sure that two out of the three
judging panel members were not employed by the company, and that
judges were given four categories on which to score entrants.
These were: overcoming personal obstacles; clear business
strategy explained; taking some form of risk in their venture and
overall success (evidence of making a reasonable profit on a
property portfolio).
The company did admit, though, that these criteria were only
applied to those who were shortlisted within their region and not
to create the shortlists in the first place. The judging panel did
not choose the regional shortlists.
The ASA, which has a remit to police promotions, said that there
was not enough transparency about how the early stages of judging
were conducted.
"The regional shortlists put before the judges were drawn from
all entries in-house and … the process and criteria for regional
short-listing were unclear," it said.
The ASA also criticised the competition because the judging
criteria used did not match those that were advertised.
"The ad stated 'Judging will be based on your financial nous,
feedback from your tenants, how long it took to build your
business, how you run it, and your personal drive and determination
to succeed'," said the ruling. "We considered that the four scoring
categories given to the judges … did not map clearly onto the
criteria set out in the ad. We noted the ad did not mention
'overcoming personal obstacles' or 'taking some form of risk in
their venture' as judging criteria."
"We also noted that 'feedback from your tenants' was a criterion
that had been applied only to the regional winners to determine the
overall winner from amongst them, and considered the ad gave the
misleading impression this criterion would be applied across the
board," said the ASA. "We concluded that B&B had not satisfied
us that they had administered the promotion according to the
criteria stated in the ad and thereby dealt fairly with entrants
throughout all stages of the competition."
Companies running competitions must abide by rules set down by
the British Code of Advertising, Sale Promotion and Direct
Marketing, known as 'the CAP Code'. Those rules include a
requirement that competitions must be decent, honest and truthful,
and that entrants must be given the criteria for judging
entries.
As well as the CAP Code on dealing fairly with entrants to
competitions, companies must abide by rules set down in the
Gambling Act if the competition can be defined as a lottery,
betting or gaming.
"Skill competitions and free prize draws remain outside the
Gambling Act – but it is important to structure such competitions
and draws so that they do not inadvertently fall within the
definition of a lottery, betting or gaming," says OUT-LAW's
guide to running a competition.
"Competitions that genuinely depend on skill, judgment or
knowledge can continue to operate outside Gambling Act regulatory
controls … [Where] there are several stages of a competition, the
key is whether the first round satisfies the skill test. If those
who complete a crossword puzzle successfully are entered into a
draw to pick the winner, this will still qualify as a skill
competition, not a lottery, because the first stage (completing the
puzzle) satisfied the skill requirement," says the guide.
