A social media post on Wickes’ own X account in 25 June 2024 stated:

“We’ve teamed up with @jeffbrazier to find a garden lover who could win £5,000 worth of vouchers to transform their outdoor space! Take a picture of your outdoor entertaining space, and share with #WickesBestHost T&Cs apply”. 

The post also featured a video with photos of outdoor entertaining spaces and on-screen text that stated:

“Show us what you’ve got! Enter now. Win £5,000 for your outdoor entertaining space. Tag us in your garden pictures. Share a photo for your chance to win £5,000 for your outdoor entertaining space. Show us what you’ve got!”.

So what?

Some people who saw the post complained to the ASA that the competition seemed to be misleading, because they believed participants were not provided with sufficient information regarding the criteria and mechanism for judging entries.

The judges seemed to just be tasked with picking their favourite… which, in fairness, is not particularly unusual or groundbreaking for this type of very simple promotion…

Response

Wickes said the competition entrants were required to take a picture of their outdoor entertaining space and upload the picture with the hashtag #Wickesbesthost. That hashtag was included in the X post, which also had a video with more details on how to enter the competition and details of the prize. Similarly, that hashtag was included in the “How to participate” section of the terms and conditions. They said this hashtag suggested and incorporated the messaging that the “best” outdoor entertaining space would be the deciding factor for the winner.

Wickes said one of the judges of the competition was a representative from Clarion, the public relations agency that created and administered the promotion. The representative did not otherwise work directly with Wickes and was responsible for shortlisting the entries. Jeff Brazier, who also was not employed by Wickes, was a guest judge and was responsible for selecting the winner.

The judges were provided with guidelines to use when shortlisting and selecting a winner, which included key things to consider, such as that the outdoor entertaining space should illustrate a set up for hosting guests during the summer and that it should not be limited to outdoor furniture, but should also include the use of, for example, plants, lighting, paint or a gazebo.

The judges were also given a scoring matrix which was based on five key questions, for example, “How do you rate the visual aesthetics of the outdoor space?”.

They explained that, as noted in the terms and conditions, shortlisted entrants were asked to provide, in 200 words or less, an explanation on the motivation behind the design of their outdoor space. 

They said that also demonstrated that the judging criteria was centred on the best outdoor hosting/entertaining spaces.

It would have been helpful to participants to have some of this information before they entered, too.

ASA's decision

Upheld

The CAP Code stated that prize promotions must specify on all marketing communications or other material referring to them, clearly before or at the time of entry, in a competition, the criteria and mechanism for judging entries, where its omission was likely to mislead. 

All marketing communications or other material referring to promotions must also communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information was likely to mislead. Significant conditions may include how to participate.

The ASA understood that to enter the competition, entrants were required to take a picture of their outdoor entertaining space and upload the picture with the hashtag #WickesBestHost. Judging criteria included a scoring matrix based on five key questions the judges had to consider.

In this instance, the ASA concluded that the judging criteria was material information that consumers required to inform a potential entry to the competition. However, the ad did not provide information on how the two stages of the competition would be judged, apart from the hashtag #WickesBestHost. We considered, however, that “WickesBestHost” alone was not sufficient to explain to entrants what the judging criteria were.

It is not enough to say, in effect, ‘we’ll pick the best'.

The ASA further noted that shortlisted entries had to provide a 200-word explanation on the motivation behind the design of their outdoor space, which the ASA believed was a significant condition relating to how to participate, and therefore that requirement should have been made immediately clear to potential entrants in the ad, rather than only in the terms and conditions… despite it not being particularly onerous.

Furthermore, the ASA considered that the requirement to provide an explanation on the motivation behind the design of their outdoor space was also not sufficient to make the judging criteria clear to potential entrants or provide a definitive explanation as to how to get shortlisted.

On the basis that the criteria for judging entries to the competition, and the significant conditions on how to participate, were not made sufficiently clear, the ASA decided the competition was therefore misleading, and the complaints were upheld.

Our take

In my personal view, this seems like a storm in a teacup. The judging criteria could have been set out in a little more detail, and it's a warning to anyone promoting a competition where the description of the judging criteria is something along the lines of “we'll choose our favourite”. It needs to be a little more objective/detailed.

The decision (and even the fact the ASA pursued this) seems harsh, and whether this really MISLED consumers is, to me, a stretch.  But, this ruling does put others on notice that they should flesh out their judging criteria in more detail.