competition controversy! again.
Options
Comments
-
Sunny_Saver wrote: »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
That is more confirmation then that the "out-of-time" winner got a £1,000 - As they didn't have to give them a prize at all you would think there might be a bit of gratitude they got anything by way of consolation never mind the full prize.0 -
BizKiTRoAcH wrote: »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.
I saw they got £3000 perhaps that's wrong. I don't know and I'm just astounded by their luck.
I would say well done but after being told they broke the terms and therefore didn't win anything, getting an angry mob of friends to attack Thomas Cook to "claim" their non existent prize is not a good look for compers anywhere.
The fact it's spreading in fb and twitter will be seen by Thomas Cook. Not Good.0 -
Anyway all the what the winners did or didn't get is besides the points I was trying to make. Perhaps I'm just sad about the nature of comping.
1) The odds changing depending who you include in draws, stands either way and Thomas Cook should have conducted this in correctly and professionally.
2) If something is advertised (and the tweet STILL exists, not been deleted as a mistake) then it should be honoured regardless of small print. Otherwise any competition could be mentioned (once , twice doesn't matter) as £10000 when the terms say £10.
I will say I'm loving the discussion, it's interesting to see how some people , say who are happy to break competition terms by entering as a third person for money, are very strict about terms and others are just as fed up as me!0 -
bubblebobble23 wrote: »Anyway all the what the winners did or didn't get is besides the points I was trying to make. Perhaps I'm just sad about the nature of comping.
1) The odds changing depending who you include in draws, stands either way and Thomas Cook should have conducted this in correctly and professionally.
2) If something is advertised (and the tweet STILL exists, not been deleted as a mistake) then it should be honoured regardless of small print. Otherwise any competition could be mentioned (once , twice doesn't matter) as £10000 when the terms say £10.
I will say I'm loving the discussion, it's interesting to see how some people , say who are happy to break competition terms by entering as a third person for money, are very strict about terms and others are just as fed up as me!
1) The correct odds applied when an in time winner was chosen, the out of time winner made no difference to the odds or the prize and would only have had any relevance if that was the only winner selected.
2) One competition entry route out of seven stated the incorrect amount - if that tweet said £100 was the prize and the T&Cs said £1,000 then people could press for £1,000 as with many things it is the T&Cs that count - if anyone was expecting £3,000 they clearly didn't read the T&Cs and it doesn't looked like it was queried at the time by anyone who entered (although the bulk of the replies were to the six tweets where no amount was mentioned anyway)
Yes, the tweets and prize draw should have been conducted much more professionally.0 -
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.That is more confirmation then that the "out-of-time" winner got a £1,000 - As they didn't have to give them a prize at all you would think there might be a bit of gratitude they got anything by way of consolation never mind the full prize.
From what I saw of the post and definitely not from the above, it neither confirmed that he was given £3k/£1k nor shows that he wasn't, just that he was told that his entry wasn't valid and then people offering support IF he complained - so this was between being told he was not a valid winner and being told he can have a (consolation) prize.
but this I definitely agree with!To sum up
The prize was as stated in the T&Cs
A winner was selected as set out in the T&Cs
A separate award was given out which makes no difference to anyone else.0 -
I'm bored of repeating myself, and you still don't get it!
1) How do you know the correct odds applied the second draw? they probably used the same method as the first then checked the winner had entered correctly this time. NO WAY A FAIR DRAW.
Also not sure what's complicated about the fact that if the correct entries had been included the first time they drew it would be a completely different entry to either of the actual winners.
2) If people think it is so important to "stick up for" or berate the company with abuse because they made a mistake, tthen why wouldn't they "stick up for" the larger prize which was mentioned. (IT SERIOUSLY DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY MENTIONED THE ACTUAL £3000 SINCE THE OTHER ENTRY TWEETS DON'T MENTION £1000, SURELY ONLY ONE PRIZE WAS MENTIONED)0 -
As far as I can see, this is a bit of a storm in a teacup. Doesn't bother me in particular since they admitted a mistake and gave out the correct prize to a correct draw. It was nice to also give a prize to the initial incorrect winner but not legally binding.
And that is the main point - the terms and conditions are the legally binding rules regardless of any information correct or incorrect in any advertisement. It is the T&Cs you agree to when entering, not the blurb in the advert. End of story.
As far as the odds go, a random draw from ALL entries, correct or incorrect, will have no effect IF the incorrect entries are ignored should they be drawn and another draw then takes place. The odds will therefore always be just between the correct entries, even if it takes ten goes before a valid entrant is chosen. The promoter mistake was in not validating the first random draw, but the next draw was totally independent of that and the odds were correct. (Statistics rule....)0 -
bubblebobble23 wrote: »I'm bored of repeating myself, and you still don't get it!
1) How do you know the correct odds applied the second draw? they probably used the same method as the first then checked the winner had entered correctly this time. NO WAY A FAIR DRAW.
Also not sure what's complicated about the fact that if the correct entries had been included the first time they drew it would be a completely different entry to either of the actual winners.
2) If people think it is so important to "stick up for" or berate the company with abuse because they made a mistake, tthen why wouldn't they "stick up for" the larger prize which was mentioned. (IT SERIOUSLY DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY MENTIONED THE ACTUAL £3000 SINCE THE OTHER ENTRY TWEETS DON'T MENTION £1000, SURELY ONLY ONE PRIZE WAS MENTIONED)
How do you know the correct odds did not apply to the second draw as almost however they worked it they will have done?
As to the prize it appears there may have been a breach of the T&Cs and they have been really generous (or they are lying)This tweet ...... states the prize was £3000, T&Cs say £1000 - you gave £1,000 to the redraw winner, is this the amount you also gave as a result of the first incorrect draw?@ThomasCookCares
Hi, both of the winners received £3,0000 -
Well that's a lovely turn of events.
Love that it bothered you so much you used your twitter to ask them! :rotfl:
Still there is one thing I know I'm sure of. Thomas Cook is not going to run another competition in a hurry!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards