Sales Promotion

Premium offers, free offers, front page flashes, editorial promotions, charity-linked promotions - all are covered by the CAP Code.

THE CODE

The complex nature of compiling and administering sales promotions led to the introduction of the Sales Promotion Code in 1974.  The Code requires all promotions to be: * legal, decent, honest and truthful * conducted equitably, promptly and efficiently and should be seen to deal   fairly and honourably with consumers * in line with accepted principles of fair competition and should not bring the   industry into disrepute * in line with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the rules.

AVAILABILITY, PARTICIPATION AND ADMINISTRATION

Promoters are expected to have sufficient promotional products to meet the likely demand created by any promotional offer.  To ensure that this is so, they must make an estimate of anticipated demand.  Phrases like `subject to availability' do not relieve promoters of their responsibilities.

Promotions should be presented in such a way as to ensure that limitations and anything likely to influence a consumer's participation in the promotion should be clear.

Adequate resources should be made available and the promotion should be properly supervised to avoid giving grounds for complaint.  Goods should be dispatched within 30 days.

PROMOTIONS AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Promoters can only offer products which are suitable for young people and must not take unfair advantage of their lack of experience.  Children should not be encouraged to make excessive purchases in order to participate.  If promotions are likely to cause conflict between children and parents, promoters must obtain parental permission for the child's participation.

RULES FOR SPECIFIC PROMOTIONS

Free offers:  There is no objection to making a free offer conditional on the purchase of other items but offers cannot be described as `free' if there is any attempt to recover the cost of the promotion from the consumer.  Direct costs to the consumer cannot exceed postage or other delivery costs.

Promotions with prizes:  These rules apply to competitions, free draws and instant win offers which are also subject to legal restrictions.  Promoters must set out clearly and fully a number of entry conditions including the closing date, any restrictions on entries, a description of prizes, the criteria for judging entries and the availability of winners' lists.  Complex rules should be avoided.

Charity-linked promotions: Promotions claiming that participation will benefit a charity must not exaggerate the benefit from individual purchases.  If a target sum of money to be contributed to charity is exceeded and consumer contributions continue to be received, the rules oblige the promoter to continue to pass them to the charity.

Front page flashes: Offers appearing on the front page of newspapers and magazines are also subject to the Codes' rules.  Publishers and promoters should ensure that any relevant conditions which may affect the consumer's decision to purchase the title and enter the promotion must be clearly indicated. 

ASA ACTION  

Damartex UK Ltd t/a Damart (Jan 2007)
The cover of a direct mail brochure offered a "beautiful Reversible Rain Jacket ... absolutely FREE!". Small text on the back page of the brochure stated "FREE GIFT CONDITIONS. Due to unforeseen demand and circumstances beyond our control, stocks of some gifts may run our from time to time. We shall do our best to supply the gift in question as soon as new stocks arrive. However, we also reserve the right to supply an alternative gift if necessary". We received a complaint from a customer who questioned whether the promoters had adequate stock to meet demand as she was sent two hand towels in place of the reversible rain jacket. Damart explained that the jacket had been sent to only a small number of respondents; they had used the offer as a test to judge possible future demand. Once they realised that demand exceeded their supplies they tried to obtain more, but found that there would be a 16-week delay before goods could be dispatched to customers. Damart provided evidence to show that the hand towels were of equal or greater value to the offered jacket. We noted that Damart had based the number of jackets on offer on a previous similar offer that they had run; the promoters had taken steps to try to obtain additional stock when they realised that demand was exceeding expectations; and they had offered an alternative gift of equal or greater value. We concluded that the promoters had taken reasonable steps to try to avoid disappointing customers and did not find the promotion in breach of the CAP Code.

Yum! Restaurants (UK) Ltd (Jan 2007)
A poster claimed "New Spicy Zinger Chicken. To try it just find 50p". Smallprint at the bottom of the poster stated " ... Limited to one piece per transaction with any bucket or meal. 'Meal' is defined as minimum of fries, drink (regular or large in each case) plus one of the following Bruger, Twister or Bucket or any items listed on the Classics menu ...". Three customers complained that the ad was misleading because it didn't make clear that the drumsticks could not be bought for 50p unless a KFC meal or Bucket was purchased as well. We considered that the claim "to try it just find 50p" gave the impression that the drumstick could be bought for just 50p whereas the reality was that was an add-on to the full priced bucket or meal. We also considered that the text explaining the conditions of the offer was too small to explain the nature of the offer clearly. KFC were told to ensure that important conditions to promotions were stated more prominently in future ads.

Nestle UK/Channel 4/Endemol (Sept & Oct 2006)
Eleven complaints were received challenging whether this prize draw, run on Kit Kat chocolate bars and offering the chance of becoming a Big Brother (a television programme) housemate, was carried out according to the laws of chance and had been made under the supervision of an independent observer. The advertisers explained that an independent observer from the Electoral Reform Services (ERS) had checked all the entry balls for the draw as it went into a machine that would select the winner and then watched the draw when it occurred on television. We were satisfied that the draw had been conducted according to the laws of chance but we considered that the independent observer should have been present and watching throughout the draw process, especially when the winning ball was selected. We concluded that the draw had not been conducted under the supervision of an independent observer and was in breach of the codes.

In a separate ruling, we upheld a complaint that a poster and national press ad for the same promotion were misleading because they failed to make clear significant terms and conditions of the promotion. The ads had stated neither that only those over the age of 18 could be eligible to be a housemate nor the closing date of the promotion.

The promoters were advised to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising future prize promotions.