Winnings received, but............

I_know_my_ABC_and_my_CMYK

Hi all, can anyone offer any advice on this, please?

End of November 2012 I won a bundle of gadgets from Short List magazine supposedly worth £2500, which consisted of

A smart TV
Camera
Windows 8 laptop
Sony xperia T phone

It was delivered on Tuesday this week. We've been playing email tennis since I received the WEM with the PR company asking if I had received the package and then giving me different dates, giving me the impression they didn't know what was going on.

When it arrived the TV which is supposed to be a Sony Bravia smart TV is just a standard cheaper version LCD, although Sony branded.

The camera wasn't delivered I received a Bluetooth speaker instead.

The phone and laptop are as described in the competition.

It doesn't add up to anywhere near £2500.

Would you email the PR company to query if there has been a mistake perhaps? or just accept it?

I am a bit disappointed after waiting so long and feel a bit let down.

Any advice appreciated.

sophie27x

Definitely don't just accept it. Your prize should be as described. If it really was impossible to give you the prize you won (which it isn't since you could quite easily go online and find the items you won) then it should be an alternative of the same value. It isn't either, so if you're disappointed, then you should email. Politely, of course but you shouldn't give it up.

lynnemcf

Something similar happened to me a couple of years ago and I never got the problem resolved. There doesnt seem to be any kind of "consumer protection" when a prize delivered does not match the prize advertised. CAB told me to contact the magazine editor and the PR company, with a copy of the competition and a photograph / description of what was delivered.

compsalex

Don't give up. I had problems with Unilever over XFactor tickets not arriving and despite emailing them several times I received no reply. I then contacted The Institute of Promotional Marketing who, in turn, put me in touch with the ASA. They contacted Unilever who then offered me compensation, which I accepted.

Try to sort it out with them first then if no satisfaction tell them you intend to take it up with the IPM.

IPM - [EMAIL="edwinm@theipm.org.uk"]edwinm@theipm.org.uk[/EMAIL]
ASA - [EMAIL="AdrianS@ASA.Org.UK"]AdrianS@ASA.Org.UK[/EMAIL]

robbies_gal

id say u have every right to question your prizes as thats misleading to say u have one something then not deliver it

mjm3346

ASA previous ruling on a Shortlist one (prize provided did not match the one described when entering) where they had a bit of an excuse and were still found against.

28 July 2010
Response

Shortlist Media Ltd (Shortlist) said there was a print version and an online version of the competition; they explained that the print version did not state that a TV would be a part of the prize. Shortlist said they originally intended to place a larger print ad, warranting a higher value prize, and agreed with the agency supplying the prize to include a TV. However, because the size of the ad changed, Shortlist believed the ad required a lower value prize and decided to remove the TV.
Shortlist explained that, due to an administrative error, the incorrect version of the competition, including references to the TV as part of the prize, appeared in the online ad. On receiving correspondence from the winner about the TV, Shortlist contacted the agency who said they were unable to provide them with the TV. Shortlist said they too did not have the budget to supply the prize. Shortlist argued their terms and conditions stated that they would not be liable for the provision of the prize and that, as the promoter, they had the right to alter prizes as they saw fit. They apologised for any inconvenience the administrative error caused.

Assessment

Upheld
The ASA noted the complainant responded to the online version of the competition that stated a Blu-ray player and a TV were included in the prize. We understood that an incorrect version of the competition had appeared online, but nonetheless considered that the ad had inaccurately described the prize that would be awarded. We were concerned that Shortlist had not provided the winner with an alternative prize to that stated in the ad and considered the terms and conditions of the promotion did not absolve them of their responsibilities under the CAP Code. We concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment to the winner and therefore breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 27.3, 27.4 and 34.1 (e) and 35.10 (Sales promotion rules).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Shortlist to ensure that future promotions accurately described the prizes that would be awarded and reminded them of their responsibilities to administer sales promotions fairly.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast) Copyright © 2012 ASA

Stu@rt

I was let down by a 3rd party PR company administering a theatre prize offered by a well known DVD rental company. Despite promises from the PR company that the tickets had been booked, the theatre had no record of the seats sold. Fotunately I hadn't mentioned the "treat" to my children and we didn't embark on the wasted journey to London. The PR company were really poor and although the DVD rental company sent all the right sort of emails to them and me promising to investigate, I never got my prize and felt the only course of action was to cancel my DVD rental membership. I only wish I had persued it further with the ASA (Had I known of them at the time), as I'm sure that neither of them realised how badly they behaved.

So please persue it and ensure that they deliver what was promised. It sounds like a fab prize and you deserve it. I'm sure that the vast majority of competitions are run openly and honestly, but companies that drop the ball in this way or let their affairs be handled by 2nd rate 3rd party PR companies should rethink and realise the impact that bad PR can have on their operations. They should really know just how badly their image is being handled when entrusted to poor PR outfits. Without wishing to appear vindictive, I think that it is the only way they learn.

I'm sure my comments will attract critisism from others, but nobody deserves to be short changed.

JacobGallagher

Definately dont accept it usually in the terms it says they'll replace for similar but thats well different also you'd probably get to keep both because they cant be arsed to arrange pick up

I_know_my_ABC_and_my_CMYK

Thanks to everyone for your replies so far!

I got back in contact on the 22nd Feb with Citizen Relations (not sure if they are the PR company etc or actually shortlist magazine) where they admitted they had sent the wireless speaker dock instead of the digital camera and they would also get back to me about the TV not being a smart TV.

I have received the digital camera today and was asked when they could collect the wireless speaker dock which is fine.

Now that i have supposedly have the correct goods (apart from the smart TV) and that the whole bundle was supposed to be worth £2,500, I decided to have a look on the Sony official web shop to see how much everything would total and the total came to just short of £1,500.

Even though the competition win was in November last year and that electrical products like these I have won depreciate in value as time goes a long, I feel that I have been quite short changed as the 4 items would not depreciate by £1,000 in that length of time.

I don't want to seem to come across as ungrateful but £1,500 worth of stuff is a big difference from the advertised £2,500.

Any advice where to now go from here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

nelie

If I may ask which TV were you supposed to have received? They ofter go by the RRP which, in this case may not be the price that sony are charging in their online shop. If the price on this other place (wherever the items are being sent from is where you need to look at for the correct prices) It may be that these items are now in the sale and thus a lot cheaper.

mjm3346

I don't want to seem to come across as ungrateful but £1,500 worth of stuff is a big difference from the advertised £2,500

Are they now the prizes as described when you entered?

With just a quick look I can find a tv the sony site for £949 that is £1169 on another (todays prices not those from the start date of the competition).