Professional compers = unprofessional compers?

Roger_Rampant

bigbloke45 wrote: »

When promoters say they want to ban "professional" compers, I presume that they mean people who enter competitions on a regular basis.

In the case of Twitter comps, Lotto define it as 50% or more of your tweets.

NationalLottery wrote:

The Promoter reserves the right to refuse entry to serial competition entrants. The Promoter will have ultimate and final say on who fits those criteria, but as a rule, anyone with over 50% of their Twitter communications as entries into competitions may face disqualification. The Promoter's decision is final.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4982427

bigbloke45

maybe they should ban serial lottery players, i.e those who enter more than 50% in a year. That would shut them up!

Rich basta*ds! No soul.

Soosieboo

Came across this on Showcase channel.. Made me laugh

hancock

Roger_Rampant

mjm3346 wrote: »

As long as the entry requirements are clear competitions do not have to be open to all and even if a blog is taken to the ASA there is no "punishment".

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority with your concerns about Sophie’s Boutique[/FONT].

[FONT=&quot]Our role as an organisation is to help ensure that advertising material is legal, decent, honest and truthful. We can intervene if an ad appears likely to be in breach of the UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising (CAP Code) by, for example, being likely to cause serious or widespread offence, being materially misleading or risking causing significant harm.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We understand you take issue with the promotion run by Sophie’s Boutique on a Twitter account controlled by the same. You believe that as the promoter selectively chose the winners on criteria post entry, this is a misleading promotion. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Having assessed the promotional details, we note that the promoter makes clear that the winners will be chosen at their discretion from the outset. No binding term is listed and the criteria for a “valid entry” would hence be determined by the promoter. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The promoter then states that they will use criteria based on selecting individuals they believe will utilise the prize directly. This is not in contravention to any existing term but is commonly taken up by promoters who believe the validity of some entrants has been called in to question. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whilst we appreciate your point that a possible prize-winner may choose to utilise the prize for a friend or relative and so may appear unsuitable, the promoters criteria for selection is their own and at their discretion. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As such, we believe this promotion is unlikely to breach the Advertising Code or to mislead consumers on the basis suggested. Thank you nonetheless for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.[/FONT]

Looks as if mjm3346 was right... again... :rotfl:

mrsHall2b

maybe this is why i never win any twitter competitions! :O id never considered that, i dont put personal info on social media, and what i do put up is nicknames etc, my twitter account isnt really that active as i dont spend much time on it. i spend a few hours on it every morning and enter competitions, i do also post random stuff too but its mainly competitions! maybe they look at my profile and discard me due to the amount of competitions on there?! but then from my page loads of people retweet the competitions who may not have seen them previously so surely ruling me out isnt fair.

mjm3346

Roger_Rampant wrote: »

Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority with your concerns about Sophie’s Boutique.

[FONT=&quot]Our role as an organisation is to help ensure that advertising material is legal, decent, honest and truthful. We can intervene if an ad appears likely to be in breach of the UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising (CAP Code) by, for example, being likely to cause serious or widespread offence, being materially misleading or risking causing significant harm.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We understand you take issue with the promotion run by Sophie’s Boutique on a Twitter account controlled by the same. You believe that as the promoter selectively chose the winners on criteria post entry, this is a misleading promotion. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Having assessed the promotional details, we note that the promoter makes clear that the winners will be chosen at their discretion from the outset. No binding term is listed and the criteria for a “valid entry” would hence be determined by the promoter. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The promoter then states that they will use criteria based on selecting individuals they believe will utilise the prize directly. This is not in contravention to any existing term but is commonly taken up by promoters who believe the validity of some entrants has been called in to question. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whilst we appreciate your point that a possible prize-winner may choose to utilise the prize for a friend or relative and so may appear unsuitable, the promoters criteria for selection is their own and at their discretion. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As such, we believe this promotion is unlikely to breach the Advertising Code or to mislead consumers on the basis suggested. Thank you nonetheless for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.[/FONT]

Looks as if mjm3346 was right... again... :rotfl:

Actually gives them a bit more of a free hand than I thought.

mjm3346

bigbloke45 wrote: »

When promoters say they want to ban "professional" compers, I presume that they mean people who enter competitions on a regular basis. Have they ever considered that many of these "professionals" are housebound through disability or other reasons through no fault of their own, and that "comping" offers a lifeline to sanity?

They might as well start saying they want to ban people in wheelchairs, epileptics, ME sufferers, MS victims, stroke victims, partially sighted etc.

Given that people like this are much more likely to shop from home, they are rather trying to bite the hand that could feed them.

A pox on them all! :mad:

I found this on a competition on the Australian Womans weekly site, possibly due to laws over there they had this as part of the T&Cs on a competition

If a medical circumstance in some way restricts your ability to enter the competition through the required mechanic, you are still eligible to enter however you must briefly state your circumstances upon entry