Email from the funday times - Updated...I am going on holiday!

hazyjo

BRILLIANT Well done!

Jx

starrybee

Oh and an even bigger thank you to weeowens for posting the comp in the first place! In all my excitement I forgot about the most important person! Thank you so much!!

Ali1802

Could you not just do an 'only fools and horses' and get your other half to pretend he's 14 for a week?! :rotfl:

Just seen your update, YAY!! :T

Enjoy
Xx

euronorris

starrybee wrote: »

:D

The lady from the Times just called back to say they are going to let me go :T :T :T

Bouncing in my seat right now, I can't quite believe it!

Thank you so much for everyone's support! :grouphug:

Amazing! I am so happy to hear that! :beer:

psilvester

euronorris wrote: »

Define family, for one.

I never said I would define a family but that it would stop people arguing about what is and isn't a family. 9 times out of 10 when it comes to family holiday comps it is 2 adults and 2 children aged between 2 and 12.

euronorris wrote: »

For two, as the T&C's also make no mention of the prizewinners taking part in publicity, it really shouldn't matter to the prizegivers if it's a family of two or a family of seven!

Lots of competitions never state that you have to do publicity but a few I have won have asked for a picture to put up on a website.

euronorris wrote: »

For three, don't think for a second they'll consider not giving holidays away as prizes in future. It's all marketing, and it's a very effective marketing tool. Something like this wouldn't stop them from doing it in the future. If they were a small company, maybe, but they're not.

Yes it is a good marketing tool, in this case a tool to get people to buy the paper. Did the person who won the prize buy the paper? No. They only entered because it was posted here. So where is the gain for the marketing company? There isn't any, only headaches, so why bother in future?

euronorris wrote: »

And lastly, there are no ethics to be discussed with regards to entering this competition as there was NO mention of the word family in the online entry form or in the T&C's. Even taking into account that the word family was used in the paper, it still wasn't defined. So, would it have been only for a family of two adults and 2 children? If so, wouldn't that be unfair on larger families? And smaller ones? How about single parent families? We could argue the ethics on that too, but when the prize is clearly defined in the T&C's, there's nothing you can do about it. But, in this instance, they didn't define anything. Heck, they didn't even make anything vaguely clear!

I was not referring to this specific example, as I mentioned that the vague T&C's created this balls up. I refer to every other "Family Holiday" competition that gets posted and people who ask "Can I enter this? I have no kids but I really want to go". So you get two adults going on a holiday aimed at families (I don't care if it is a single parent or not) with kids. That's unethical to me.

cagsd

Fab news starrybee, made up to hear they're honouring the prize!! Have a lovely holiday!!

d0nner

Woohoo! Fantastic news! :j:T
Do you know where you'll be staying? Didn't see anything mentioned in the T&c's!

hannonle

I'm so glad you've had a good outcome! yay! Enjoy your awesome holiday

Ignore that poster saying you are morally wrong. Whatever the number of tickets/places you win, it's up to you how many you choose to fulfil. I'm sure they would let you pay extra for more people eg an extra child, so why shouldn't they allow you not to use the surplus tickets?

euronorris

psilvester wrote: »

Lots of competitions never state that you have to do publicity but a few I have won have asked for a picture to put up on a website.

If they don't define publicity requirements in the T&C's, they can ask, but they cannot impose it on you.

Yes it is a good marketing tool, in this case a tool to get people to buy the paper. Did the person who won the prize buy the paper? No. They only entered because it was posted here. So where is the gain for the marketing company? There isn't any, only headaches, so why bother in future?

Actually, the marketing on this one was more likely aimed around the movie Turbo and getting people to see it. Families are the biggest target audience, but I doubt they'd complain about the adults who went to see it as a result of seeing the competition linked to the movie. And some would have.

The marketing company also would have used this a tool to gain information on people, get them to sign up to newsletters etc. All valuable for them (both in terms of internal market research and in terms of selling on details - for those they have permission to). Granted, not everyone will agree (ticking/unticking boxes to opt out), but a lot would. And even those who did buy the paper and enter the competition may have still opted out.

It also still leads people to the Times website. A proportion of those who entered the comp, would've then gone onto the full Times site, browsed it, may have signed up to buy the electronic subscription etc etc. Again, a money spinner for them. The more people visiting their site, the more money they receive from other people advertising on their site.

Marketing is multi faceted. It is not just based on one thing alone, as you have suggested.

I was not referring to this specific example, as I mentioned that the vague T&C's created this balls up. I refer to every other "Family Holiday" competition that gets posted and people who ask "Can I enter this? I have no kids but I really want to go". So you get two adults going on a holiday aimed at families (I don't care if it is a single parent or not) with kids. That's unethical to me.

I'm with you on the other comps, where it's clearly defined. I don't enter them, and don't know why anyone else bothers. But, if the company then lets a couple take it (instead of the clearly defined 2 adults, 2 children setup), that's up to them. Pretty carppy, but nowt we can do about it really.

Thankfully, that is not what has happened here.

psilvester

hannonle wrote: »

I'm so glad you've had a good outcome! yay! Enjoy your awesome holiday

Ignore that poster saying you are morally wrong. Whatever the number of tickets/places you win, it's up to you how many you choose to fulfil. I'm sure they would let you pay extra for more people eg an extra child, so why shouldn't they allow you not to use the surplus tickets?

I never said that the winner was morally wrong for entering this competition and I am please for them to win a fantastic holiday. As I said the terms and conditions were vague to not explicitly state a family holiday.