Sprinkle.com

monsieur_epargnant

Please update us how this goes. I won a wearable from Currys PC World that took 3 weeks before it showed. Communication was rather poor with them too. Patience can be hard to source when you are excited.

Congrats btw.

sheils6

knitnut wrote: »

Does anyone have an email I can use to contact Sprinkle please. I believe I am the winner of the chromebook prize drawn on 23rd December. I have used their 'contact us' form twice and I have PM'ed them on FB but no one has got back to me. I see that all/most winners are announced on their FB page but not the winner for the chromebook. Thanks in advance.

Someone posted they won this here


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5149055

monsieur_epargnant

Be careful of misrepresenting legal documentation that is a legal requirement now under EU law. snakepilsen keeps referring to the full Privacy Policy which I am lead to understand this user feels is some affront to privacy legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Please note many many sites have nearly precisely the same clause in their privacy policies, amongst them Superdrug, Shortlist, ITV & even Money Saving Expert...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67426636#Comment_67426636

mjm3346

monsieur_epargnant wrote: »

Be careful of misrepresenting legal documentation that is a legal requirement now under EU law. snakepilsen keeps referring to the full Privacy Policy which I am lead to understand this user feels is some affront to privacy legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Please note many many sites have nearly precisely the same clause in their privacy policies, amongst them Superdrug, Shortlist, ITV & even Money Saving Expert...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67426636#Comment_67426636

Was this post in response to a deleted post as it does not appear relevant to the post above it (or any other made on this thread in the last week)?

Seems a lot of promotion/support for a site that accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of their prize descriptions or delivery of said prizes, had posts deleted for self-promotion and attempted to manipulate posting in iwiwiw.

monsieur_epargnant

The amount of noise you and snakepilsen have made about this business is why I even bothered to look. There are many posts in this thread and on other threads this was referring to.

On researching it further though I believe inaccurate information is being brandished about this company like it is fact. It may have been true historically but certainly not now using their current legal docs.

I already stated to you in another thread you are referring to something that does not reflect the current Terms & Conditions when you declare they 'take no responsibility'. Please show to us using the current full Terms & Conditions or full Privacy Policy where it states this text you refer to.

As to their behaviour previously trying to self promote and suggest to winners to post about winning, from what I can gather, from looking back months, if this was true the activity has stopped. They learned their lesson and you may have been part of that success? I've dealt with many businesses who also did that early on since using this site for 7 years. It's easy to get swamped by the size of MSE when first getting to grips.

Many many people have stated they have no issue with Sprinkle.com and have won and received prizes.

By openly trying to put off users from using Sprinkle, when there is no legal reason why we should not, actually heads to rather shaky legal territory. That's all I've been trying to say. When I ask for proof from you or snakpilsen I am met with quotes that are not within Sprinkle's docs. Again these changes may have been in part because of the conversations in MSE. Who can say.

Anyway time has moved forward some and, despite what may have happened before, right now everything appears to be tickety boo.

mjm3346

monsieur_epargnant wrote: »

The amount of noise you and snakepilsen have made about this business is why I even bothered to look. There are many posts in this thread and on other threads this was referring to.

On researching it further though I believe inaccurate information is being brandished about this company like it is fact. It may have been true historically but certainly not now using their current legal docs.

I already stated to you in another thread you are referring to something that does not reflect the current Terms & Conditions when you declare they 'take no responsibility'. Please show to us using the current full Terms & Conditions or full Privacy Policy where it states this text you refer to.

As to their behaviour previously trying to self promote and suggest to winners to post about winning, from what I can gather, from looking back months, if this was true the activity has stopped. They learned their lesson and you may have been part of that success? I've dealt with many businesses who also did that early on since using this site for 7 years. It's easy to get swamped by the size of MSE when first getting to grips.

Many many people have stated they have no issue with Sprinkle.com and have won and received prizes.

By openly trying to put off users from using Sprinkle, when there is no legal reason why we should not, actually heads to rather shaky legal territory. That's all I've been trying to say. When I ask for proof from you or snakpilsen I am met with quotes that are not within Sprinkle's docs. Again these changes may have been in part because of the conversations in MSE. Who can say.

Anyway time has moved forward some and, despite what may have happened before, right now everything appears to be tickety boo.

I responded to your puff piece, the only post I had made in the thread before that was to point out an incorrect end date.


Here you go, all in your member licence

Sprinkle has no responsibility whatsoever for the supply and quality of the Prize.

Sprinkle Members who share Sprinkle Shared Links are under a duty at all times when recommending Products & Services to provide clear and accurate descriptions of the Prize. Sprinkle does not guarantee the accuracy of any information on the Site relating to the Prize which is the sole responsibility of the relevant Sprinkle Member

http://www.sprinkle.com/member-license/


Looking at their T&Cs the comps should probably not be posted anyway as "share" links are not allowed on this part of the forum and they are the only ones they allow.

not to establish a link to our Site in any website that is not owned by You other than a Sprinkle Shared Link that is being shared for the purposes of the Sprinkle Program;

and we know why this has happened as they were asking for the posts to be made

Many many people have stated they have no issue with Sprinkle.com and have won and received prizes.

monsieur_epargnant

Sprinkle has no responsibility whatsoever for the supply and quality of the Prize.

again you are isolating text which removes it's context

the full quote states

5.8 IMPORTANT: Sprinkle has no responsibility whatsoever for the supply and quality of the Prize. For the avoidance of doubt, the transaction relating to the supply of the Prize to the Winner takes place off the Site directly between the Sprinkle Member and the relevant Sprinkle Retailer in accordance with the Prize Draw Notice. Sprinkle Members acknowledge that:

1. Sprinkle is likely to have many Prize Draws running on the Site concurrently and any number of Sprinkle Members may choose to enter those Prize Draws as is possible;
2. Sprinkle do not always vet Sprinkle Retailers;
3. Sprinkle Retailers can further make changes to their Retailer Terms at any time at their sole discretion;
4. Sprinkle do not check, audit, monitor or control: the identity, credit worthiness or bona fides of Sprinkle Retailers, the security of Sprinkle Retailer Sites or the accuracy of the information published on Sprinkle Retailer Sites or on the Site in respect of the Prize; and,
5. Sprinkle is not party to any contract that may ensue as between the Winner and a Sprinkle Retailer.

Which I understand as meaning quality of the goods is between the person entering the comp and the supplier directly sending them the prize

Sprinkle Members who share Sprinkle Shared Links are under a duty at all times when recommending Products & Services to provide clear and accurate descriptions of the Prize. Sprinkle does not guarantee the accuracy of any information on the Site relating to the Prize which is the sole responsibility of the relevant Sprinkle Member

refers to the sharing of links and there referring to content they provide but where you could alter the image, text, url etc (for example on Pinterest). I see this could be more likely to say you become responsible for this social content and should make sure all references to their site and prize are accurate because you are bringing their company into the mix.

Looking at their T&Cs the comps should probably not be posted anyway as "share" links are not allowed on this part of the forum and they are the only ones they allow.

Go to page one of this thread where a representative of Sprinkle is granted authority by MSE to allay concerns. If we were not allowed to share their links he surely would have said so after going to such trouble.

I'd say the main reason people post they won is because they won. Different perspective hey?

monsieur_epargnant

And again as a comparison so you are aware this clause regarding quality of the prize is not unusual, please see the Shortlist Terms & Conditions version..

​LINKS TO OTHER SITES, AND REFERENCES TO OTHER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
The Services will from time to time offer you links to third party websites. While we hope you will be interested in these other sites, you acknowledge that they are independent from us and we do not necessarily endorse, and we accept no responsibility or liability for, their content, practices, terms and conditions or suitability.
The Services will from time to time provide information to you about third party products and services. While we hope you will be interested in these products and services, you acknowledge that they are independent from us and we accept no responsibility or liability for their quality, safety, suitability or fitness for purpose.

mjm3346

monsieur_epargnant wrote: »

again you are isolating text which removes it's context

the full quote states

Which I understand as meaning quality of the goods is between the person entering the comp and the supplier directly sending them the prize


refers to the sharing of links and there referring to content they provide but where you could alter the image, text, url etc (for example on Pinterest). I see this could be more likely to say you become responsible for this social content and should make sure all references to their site and prize are accurate because you are bringing their company into the mix.



Go to page one of this thread where a representative of Sprinkle is granted authority by MSE to allay concerns. If we were not allowed to share their links he surely would have said so after going to such trouble.

I'd say the main reason people post they won is because they won. Different perspective hey?

As it was shown to be on the site you now switch tack to claim it's out of context -

Sprinkle has no responsibility whatsoever for the supply and quality of the Prize.

If the prize doesn't turn up/is not as described or is broken etc they accept no responsibility for it - how is that out of context?

As you posted earlier the T&Cs have been updated

not to establish a link to our Site in any website that is not owned by You other than a Sprinkle Shared Link that is being shared for the purposes of the Sprinkle Program

Their inflated appearance in iwiwiw for the number of prizes they offer has already been answered.

I do not use that site, have never entered/won/lost/posted any competitions from it and do not have any vested interest in promoting it or otherwise.

monsieur_epargnant

It's out of context because it's a legal clause. By not quoting the parts about the supplier of the goods being the one responsible to you, you leave the statement about Sprinkle not being responsible for them hanging there like intentional disregard of our rights. They take no responsibility because the supplier takes it when you can read the entire clause. It's called a 'contextomy'.

Have you stopped to think that 'inflated' iwiwiw have actually been due to genuine excitement and to show the naysayers that Sprinkle is legit? (Edit: Eg - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66965843&postcount=1)

For example, I have NEVER taken this much time to go over a business' policies. By doing so though to attempt to show to you that you are incorrect, I have absolutely reassured myself in the process that this is an entirely reputable business with business activity very much like many others supplying competition prizes.

[STRIKE]I'm done.[/STRIKE] Think what you will.