Forum Home» Competitions Time» Compers Chat Corner

competition controversy! again. - Page 3

New Post Advanced Search

competition controversy! again.

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Compers Chat Corner
41 replies 6.1K views
135

Replies

  • mjm3346mjm3346 Forumite
    43.9K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The irony of the logic that they can advertise the wrong prize amount but only award the legitimate entrant the small prize because the T & Cs say the small amount , but it's also ok for them to include invalid entries in the draw, thus messing up the odds, even though the T & Cs say " Any entries after the closing will not be considered"


    Not quite sure what you do not understand here - One tweet out of 7 mentioned the wrong amount but that one and all the others linked to the T&Cs which made it clear more than once what the prize amount was - if you choose not to read the T&Cs that is down to you.

    The redraw was from the correct pool of entrants so your odds were exactly what they should have been.

  • CefcaCefca Forumite
    60 posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    This does rather undermine the whole basis that the MSE comps boards exist under.
    If every member who posts comps were to keep them to themselves and not post/share them, then there would not be a comps board. If "there are loads of comps not getting posted here anymore", is this the beginning of the end for MSE comping? :(


    There's like 15 pages of competitions posted every day. I think we'll be fine.
  • thingamaBobthingamaBob Forumite
    20K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Cefca wrote: »
    There's like 15 pages of competitions posted every day. I think we'll be fine.

    There is now, but if the people who find them do what others are doing and enter them without posting them, there won't be. Why should anyone find and post comps for people who aren't reciprocating but are keeping them to themselves?
    As I said, it is undermining the basic sharing principle that has applied so far.
    GrandBob
  • bubblebobble23bubblebobble23 Forumite
    700 posts
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    mjm3346 wrote: »
    Not quite sure what you do not understand here - One tweet out of 7 mentioned the wrong amount but that one and all the others linked to the T&Cs which made it clear more than once what the prize amount was - if you choose not to read the T&Cs that is down to you.

    The redraw was from the correct pool of entrants so your odds were exactly what they should have been.

    I'm not sure what you don't understant about the fact the original draw where they chose to deliver the £3000 prize should have NOT included anyone who entered wrongly/lately and therefore fair odds for the advertised prize would have applied.

    Also surely the actual entrant should have got the larger prize anyway, not the accidental false draw.

    To be fair, with people offering to enter competitions as a third-party for people for payment there won't ever be fair draws for real people who put the effort in again anyway.
  • bubblebobble23bubblebobble23 Forumite
    700 posts
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    There is now, but if the people who find them do what others are doing and enter them without posting them, there won't be. Why should anyone find and post comps for people who aren't reciprocating but are keeping them to themselves?
    As I said, it is undermining the basic sharing principle that has applied so far.

    To be honest, I was put off sharing by the attitudes of a few users on this site.

    I am very very grateful to all who do make the effort!

    YOU POSTERS ARE AMAZING! :T:T:T:T
  • edited 14 October 2018 at 9:34PM
    mjm3346mjm3346 Forumite
    43.9K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 14 October 2018 at 9:34PM
    I'm not sure what you don't understant about the fact the original draw where they chose to deliver the £3000 prize should have NOT included anyone who entered wrongly/lately and therefore fair odds for the advertised prize would have applied.

    Also surely the actual entrant should have got the larger prize anyway, not the accidental false draw.

    To be fair, with people offering to enter competitions as a third-party for people for payment there won't ever be fair draws for real people who put the effort in again anyway.


    The actual winner got the correct prize of £1,000 and the correct odds applied to everyone who had entered in the correct time frame.

    If the promoter chooses to gave something to someone else outside the terms of the competition be it £1,000, £3,000 or £10,000 etc that is entirely their choice and has nothing to do with awarding the competition winner the correct amount.


    (I haven't looked through all the tweets but I assume there is one from the promoter that confirms how much was paid as a "consolation" to the first chosen?)

  • bubblebobble23bubblebobble23 Forumite
    700 posts
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    mjm3346 wrote: »
    The actual winner got the correct prize of £1,000 and the correct odds applied to everyone who had entered in the correct time frame.

    If the promoter chooses to gave something to someone else outside the terms of the competition be it £1,000, £3,000 or £10,000 etc that is entirely their choice and has nothing to do with awarding the competition winner the correct amount.


    (I haven't looked through all the tweets but I assume there is one from the promoter that confirms how much was paid as a "consolation" to the first chosen?)

    Actually if you follow various threads, the first chosen was told they were getting nothing, there was an uproar from friends and Thomas Cook decided to award them the whole prize. It then took some days before they decided to draw a correct winner.

    I'm not sure you understand that if just 1 draw had been done only including the correct entries there would be a different winner who would receive the larger, advertised prize.
    It is not ok for companies to "fanny about" (sorry love that phrase) switching and changing, runnning weird draws and not even knowing their own terms.


    Separately, you think it's ok to mention a prize as one thing, as long as the T & Cs say something different you don't have to honour what you advertise?
    I mean why don't all companies that say they are giving away X,Y and Z just make sure there's a term saying we can change the prize and give away just Z.
  • mjm3346mjm3346 Forumite
    43.9K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Actually if you follow various threads, the first chosen was told they were getting nothing, there was an uproar from friends and Thomas Cook decided to award them the whole prize. It then took some days before they decided to draw a correct winner.

    I'm not sure you understand that if just 1 draw had been done only including the correct entries there would be a different winner who would receive the larger, advertised prize.
    It is not ok for companies to "fanny about" (sorry love that phrase) switching and changing, runnning weird draws and not even knowing their own terms.


    Separately, you think it's ok to mention a prize as one thing, as long as the T & Cs say something different you don't have to honour what you advertise?
    I mean why don't all companies that say they are giving away X,Y and Z just make sure there's a term saying we can change the prize and give away just Z.

    All totally irrelevant without confirmation that £3000 was paid as a "consolation" - I would be quite happy to bet 10p that they only got £1,000 - and that is what the winner would have got if they chose from "on time" entries in the first place.


    There was a mistake on the one tweet out of seven where they mentioned an amount - the T&Cs were completely clear on the prize value and they were linked to from all the competition tweets so anybody reading them (should be everyone who entered) would clearly see the prize was £1,000.

  • BizKiTRoAcHBizKiTRoAcH Forumite
    517 posts
    Ninth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    bubblebobble23, the thing you are completely and utterly disregarding is the fact that the first winner didn't get £3000. The prize was £1000. Both entrants got £1000. Your odds didn't change when the first winner was drawn. If you would have been picked as the original winner, you would have got £1000. When you questioned that one tweet said £3000, you would have been linked to the terms and conditions (which you agreed to when entering) and they would have clearly explained that it was a mistake on their part.

    Honestly, I don't know why you are so bothered about this. The first winner shouldn't have won, so they drew another winner. The odds were exactly the same both times. Both entrants got £1000.
  • Sunny_SaverSunny_Saver Forumite
    3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    I didn’t see the original competition tweet, but I did see a post on a comping Fb group by the winner who entered late saying he’d missed out on a £3k prize and a lot of people offering their support if he complained.

    I tend to avoid Thomas Cook competitions these days I’m never sure if their customers come back as well as when they left.
    “It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.”

    F. Scott Fitzgerald
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support