Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • bubblebobble23
    • By bubblebobble23 12th Oct 18, 3:52 PM
    • 561Posts
    • 38,843Thanks
    bubblebobble23
    competition controversy! again.
    • #1
    • 12th Oct 18, 3:52 PM
    competition controversy! again. 12th Oct 18 at 3:52 PM
    So Thomas cook hosted a twitter chat competition to win 3000 in holiday vouchers. competiton and terms here :

    https://twitter.com/ThomasCookUK/status/1045712237812310023?s=19

    very clearly states 6pm finish.

    They picked a winner who entered 13mins after not during the chat at all.
    They then recinded on that prize after being told they broke the rules.
    They were inundated with messages saying how unfair this is , so they let them have the prize.

    They then picked another winner. Problem is they were only given 1000 vouchers and the misdrawn winner was given 3000 . Thread here:

    https://twitter.com/ThomasCookUK/status/1050376950496317440?s=19

    Personally I feel this is massively unfair, especially on the new winner but also the hundreds who entered fairly!

    What's everyone think?

    Also, I bet they don't host any competitions for a while now.

Page 2
    • deb2112
    • By deb2112 13th Oct 18, 8:41 PM
    • 292 Posts
    • 3,968 Thanks
    deb2112
    Something similar on Facebook the other day. Comp rules stated entrants had to comment the word "win" as part of their entry but the original person announced as the winner hadn't done so, which led to dozens of complaining comments, some of which were downright rude directly towards the original winner. Comp runner then announced they had redrawn and that the original winner had been "very understanding".

    Whereas in the ideal world the runners of comps should follow their own rules it always seems very unfair to announce a winner then take the prize away from them. At least the one you are referring to let them have a prize as well. I felt with the Facebook one, if I'd been the second drawn winner, I'd have asked to split the win (vouchers) with the first one. It would have felt wrong otherwise.
    • mjm3346
    • By mjm3346 13th Oct 18, 8:50 PM
    • 38,308 Posts
    • 263,988 Thanks
    mjm3346
    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"
    Originally posted by bubblebobble23

    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.
    Internet goodness 25370
    • Cefca
    • By Cefca 13th Oct 18, 10:35 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Cefca
    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?
    Originally posted by thingamaBob

    There's like 15 pages of competitions posted every day. I think we'll be fine.
    • thingamaBob
    • By thingamaBob 13th Oct 18, 11:03 PM
    • 15,123 Posts
    • 913,140 Thanks
    thingamaBob
    There's like 15 pages of competitions posted every day. I think we'll be fine.
    Originally posted by Cefca
    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.
    Bob
    The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
    Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
    Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

    Omar Khayyam
    • bubblebobble23
    • By bubblebobble23 14th Oct 18, 9:09 PM
    • 561 Posts
    • 38,843 Thanks
    bubblebobble23
    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.
    Originally posted by mjm3346
    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.
    • bubblebobble23
    • By bubblebobble23 14th Oct 18, 9:11 PM
    • 561 Posts
    • 38,843 Thanks
    bubblebobble23
    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.
    Originally posted by thingamaBob
    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!
    • mjm3346
    • By mjm3346 14th Oct 18, 9:29 PM
    • 38,308 Posts
    • 263,988 Thanks
    mjm3346
    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.
    Originally posted by bubblebobble23

    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?)
    Last edited by mjm3346; 14-10-2018 at 9:34 PM.
    Internet goodness 25370
    • bubblebobble23
    • By bubblebobble23 14th Oct 18, 9:55 PM
    • 561 Posts
    • 38,843 Thanks
    bubblebobble23
    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?)
    Originally posted by mjm3346
    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.
    • mjm3346
    • By mjm3346 14th Oct 18, 10:23 PM
    • 38,308 Posts
    • 263,988 Thanks
    mjm3346
    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.
    Originally posted by bubblebobble23
    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.
    Internet goodness 25370
    • BizKiTRoAcH
    • By BizKiTRoAcH 15th Oct 18, 4:35 PM
    • 450 Posts
    • 21,556 Thanks
    BizKiTRoAcH
    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 Saver
    • By Sunny Saver 15th Oct 18, 5:54 PM
    • 2,881 Posts
    • 96,454 Thanks
    Sunny Saver
    I didnt see the original competition tweet, but I did see a post on a comping Fb group by the winner who entered late saying hed 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 Im 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
    • mjm3346
    • By mjm3346 15th Oct 18, 7:34 PM
    • 38,308 Posts
    • 263,988 Thanks
    mjm3346
    I didnt see the original competition tweet, but I did see a post on a comping Fb group by the winner who entered late saying hed missed out on a 3k prize
    Originally posted by Sunny Saver
    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.
    Internet goodness 25370
    • bubblebobble23
    • By bubblebobble23 15th Oct 18, 9:48 PM
    • 561 Posts
    • 38,843 Thanks
    bubblebobble23
    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.
    Originally posted by BizKiTRoAcH
    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.
    • bubblebobble23
    • By bubblebobble23 15th Oct 18, 9:54 PM
    • 561 Posts
    • 38,843 Thanks
    bubblebobble23
    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!
    • mjm3346
    • By mjm3346 15th Oct 18, 10:39 PM
    • 38,308 Posts
    • 263,988 Thanks
    mjm3346
    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!
    Originally posted by bubblebobble23
    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.
    Internet goodness 25370
    • Didoow
    • By Didoow 15th Oct 18, 11:19 PM
    • 145 Posts
    • 4,229 Thanks
    Didoow
    I didnt see the original competition tweet, but I did see a post on a comping Fb group by the winner who entered late saying hed 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.

    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.
    but this I definitely agree with!
    • bubblebobble23
    • By bubblebobble23 16th Oct 18, 9:37 AM
    • 561 Posts
    • 38,843 Thanks
    bubblebobble23
    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)
    • pate-ci0
    • By pate-ci0 16th Oct 18, 10:17 AM
    • 713 Posts
    • 17,614 Thanks
    pate-ci0
    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....)
    • mjm3346
    • By mjm3346 16th Oct 18, 12:17 PM
    • 38,308 Posts
    • 263,988 Thanks
    mjm3346
    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)
    Originally posted by bubblebobble23

    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 3,000
    Last edited by mjm3346; 16-10-2018 at 12:21 PM.
    Internet goodness 25370
    • bubblebobble23
    • By bubblebobble23 17th Oct 18, 8:57 AM
    • 561 Posts
    • 38,843 Thanks
    bubblebobble23
    Well that's a lovely turn of events.

    Love that it bothered you so much you used your twitter to ask them!

    Still there is one thing I know I'm sure of. Thomas Cook is not going to run another competition in a hurry!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,532Posts Today

8,006Users online

Martin's Twitter