There’s been a lot of negative comment about the Winning Moments mechanic now being used in many prize promotions. But is the problem with the mechanic, or how promotions are being explained to consumers, asks Steve Berry of Emirat

Following some negative press about the overall odds of winning and the number of actual winners in some recent prize promotions, frozen food company McCain has become the latest brand to announce that they won’t be running any more Winning Moments-style prize promotions in the future.

The complaints about Winning Moments, and the strategic reaction by many promoters to them, lead many to ask if this reflects how all consumers feel. Is everyone losing faith in Winning Moments? I would argue not.

The average consumer would more than likely take a promotion in the spirit it was created – as a bit of fun. I am certain that McCain in no way set out to do anything other than inspire and delight their consumers with a fun and attractive promotion.

I don’t, in truth, know the facts – I didn’t work on this promotion – but I would guess McCain, working within a set budget, used fixed fee or promotional insurance to stretch that budget and provide the opportunity to win as many prizes as possible. Their intent ultimately would have been to make it more exciting, more appealing and to get a better response.

Compliance with the CAP Code

If this promotion was set up and implemented in accordance with the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) codes, the rules which govern all marketing activity in the UK, which I imagine it was, then all the prizes which the public were told could be won were in fact available to be won.

Therefore, the fact remains, had more people played, more prizes would have been won.

Let’s not forget, the whole idea of a promotion is as an enticement to purchase, the end goal being that you purchase the product, not enter a promotion. Furthermore, not all promotions guarantee a reward in exchange for this purchase, and they are not intended to. It’s a bonus, an add-on, a supplement to the product which is, most importantly, what you are actually buying!

The bag of chips cost no more than usual, therefore it hasn’t cost anything to enter this promotion. What then is there to feel disgruntled about? It’s not like buying a lottery ticket where you are actually paying to enter a competition. But again, with this too, you are only given a chance to win and no guarantees are given.

So why then, in the context of a promotion, which you are not paying to enter, does the idea that someone ‘could’ win seem to be an alienating concept all of a sudden?

I have read a lot of criticism and cries for promotional prizes to be ‘guaranteed’; but before promoters react, I would ask that they put this into context. While a promotion might guarantee prizes and therefore winners, it doesn’t dictate any differential in the ultimate appeal or number of participants that engage in a promotion. More winners, yes. More entries? Sadly, no.

Having a small number of guaranteed prizes can actually harm your promotion and objectives. This is due to the fact that the average consumer will perceive that, with only a few prizes to be won, they have very little chance of winning and so won’t bother to take part.

Worse still, they may not even buy the product, or in the frequency you are looking for, which is the whole reasoning for running the promotion in the first place!

The prizes are then only won by those that bother to take part, who perhaps aren’t the target audience that the promotion is aimed at.

I have seen for myself the same pool of participants winning prizes repeatedly during a promotion and in lots of cases, across a variety of promotions. These people are naturally the first to criticise a promotion with longer odds and no guaranteed winners because, frankly, they aren’t winning.

Your average consumer probably wouldn’t have the same view and it’s a shame for any brand to shy away from a Winning Moments promotion because of the view of a minority.

Winning Moments – indeed, all prize promotions with a ‘chance’ element – have their benefits. They allow for more inspiring and exciting promotions, which we all know have a far greater marketing impact, reach and ROI than your average free prize draw. They can help facilitate the creative, fun and fabulous promotions that we love to see on the shelves, by making them affordable and exciting at the same time. I don’t want to see promotional marketing like this disappear, especially when it really doesn’t have to.

In all fairness, though, there are perhaps two sides to this argument. You could argue that if you usually buy a different brand and made a buying choice solely based on the ‘chance’ to win something, do you deserve better odds? Maybe a guaranteed reward? I can certainly see the point to this argument.

Striking a happy medium

Perhaps, then, there has to be a balance with these things, a way to offer a fantastic promotion and keep the odds reasonable; by being just that.

Here, in my humble opinion, is how to go about striking that balance:

• Create a good ratio of packs to wins – 100m packs and a few prizes that ‘could’ be won isn’t a good ratio to go on. Decide what would be reasonable for your customers, what you’d expect to see as a consumer and go with that.
• Guarantee some of the prizes – put aside some of the budget to ensure you have winners.
• Use the other part of the budget to cover additional prizes and have ‘winning opportunities’. This will allow for the budget to go further and the promotion be as exciting as you’d like it to be!
• Mop Up – have a prize draw after the close of the promotion to compensate for late entries and entrants who’ve entered during the promotion and not won.
• Limit the number of winning individuals – so that the same people don’t get all the prizes and it’s fair for everyone.
• Don’t scrimp! The promotional website shouldn’t cost more than the promotional prizes! If it does, you probably need to look at it again.
• Be upfront. If you’re clear about the prizes and the odds, the choice for consumers is easy – buy and take part or don’t. It’s not about misleading anyone, ever!
• Choose your words carefully. Transparency is key; ‘’to be won’’ isn’t the same as ‘’could be won’’. Make sure you’re using language that can’t be misunderstood.

Steve Berry is managing director of fixed fee and promotional risk management company EMIRAT.

The post Are Winning Moments losing out unfairly? appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Sarah Burns of Prizeology has some words of wisdom on how to run prize promotions campaigns on social media that comply with UK law and the CAP Code

I love social media. I love social media because it enriches what leisure time I have in oh so many ways, especially when it comes to watching skateboarding dogs; but also because it’s brilliant for prize promotions, which is what I fill my working days with.

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest – they all have their merits and indeed their quirks, but I like these platforms because, unless you don’t understand how the channel works and get the mechanic completely wrong, the audience is almost always engaged and responsive.

Also, because these are still new and evolving spaces, promoters can be innovative – although, of course, they can’t make up their own rules, because each platform has its own acceptable use policies and guidelines for promotions.

Facebook, for instance, insists prize draws must be run through an app within Facebook or a business page, not a personal profile, while Instagram says you mustn’t ask people to tag themselves in photos if they aren’t actually in the pic. A competition in which the most retweets wins breaches Twitter guidelines and you can’t permit multiple entries to a Pinterest promotion or ask entrants to re-pin a specific image.

If you don’t follow these platform guidelines for promotions your account or – much worse – your client’s account is at risk of being shut down. It goes without saying that I don’t want one of the primary ways in which my client engages with its customers to be blocked.

I see it as my responsibility because my company makes full use of our clients’ business logins to monitor their social media campaigns. We answer queries, review the stats and check the promotion is being seen. Facebook’s recent algorithm change now means giveaways, for instance, might not always appear organically in feeds and brands will need to pay to boost their posts in order to gain visibility, so that presents a new challenge.

In addition to these site-specific idiosyncrasies, online prize promotions must abide by the regulations and laws of the land. Like all non-broadcast promotional marketing in the UK, social media prize draws are regulated by the CAP Code (the self-regulatory code which governs advertising and marketing in the UK), so they must have clear terms and conditions. These can be abridged – Twitter is still a tight squeeze although it’s slightly easier now there are 280 characters to play with – but the full and frank version should never be more than a single click away. If your promotion is global, take care, because different countries have different rules and what’s legal here isn’t necessarily legal elsewhere.

Whatever platform you use, you have to be able to pull all the entry data if you’re asked for it and prove that your prizes have been awarded fairly, so you need an app or program for doing this. On platforms like Twitter and Instagram, as well as asking entrants to use a specific hashtag, get them to tag your brand, as this helps you sort people who have actively entered your prize draw from those who have coincidentally used the same hashtag.

You also need a verification process to ensure entrants are who they claim to be, own the content they’ve entered and haven’t broken any other terms and conditions.

If you rely on notifying your winners by naming them in a Facebook post or tagging them on Instagram, you can’t guarantee they’ll see that post or, if they do, it might be months later, by which time you’ll have given the prize to someone else. People really do set up fake accounts simply to claim prizes, so always contact winners privately. On Twitter, for example, this may mean asking them to follow you so you can direct-message them.

Best practice on social media means running effective but compliant promotions. I would be mortified if a consumer complained to the ASA about a promotion I had run. But more than that, non-compliance, including by social media influencers who fail to make the correct disclosures of any commercial relationship with the brands they are promoting, undermines consumer trust and damages the promotional marketing industry as a whole, so following platform guidelines and adhering to the law benefits us all.

I am out to spread the love, because although I do love social media, I also love compliance too – and I don’t care who knows it!

Sarah Burns is Founder of Prizeology, a consultancy specialising in the management and implementation of all aspects of prize promotions, on both strategic and tactical levels. Prizeology is one of the Headline Sponsors of Connect 2018, the IPM’s Members Networking Event which is taking place on Wednesday 31st January. For more information about Connect 2018, see the IPM website.

The post Top tips for running compliant promotions on social media appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Laura Kelly of the IPM’s Legal Advisory Service highlights some changes to the rules on putting prices in marketing communications

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute recently released the new Guidance for Traders on Pricing Practices. It replaces the 2010 BIS Pricing Practices Guide, long used by both advertisers and regulators to help establish best practice in line with consumer protection laws. But exactly how might this change impact promotional marketing?

The first point to note is that the consumer protection laws have not changed; the guidance has been updated but the principles behind it remain the same, so it’s unlikely you will need to significantly change your current practices.  Remember the guidance is not legally mandatory but will be considered by regulators where appropriate.

The guidance provides common sense advice with practical examples, and the new document is arguably more user friendly. It breaks scenarios down into practices that are less likely or more likely to comply, rather than giving definitive rules or timespans. There are two key changes that most commenters have picked up on that are relevant to our field.

One of these is that the so called “28-day rule” has been removed. The BIS PPG stated that a period of 28 consecutive days within the previous 6 months would be deemed reasonable in terms of the least amount of time a product would need to be sold at a higher price before it could be reduced and genuinely claimed to be discounted. Some have suggested this was used to artificially inflate prices; the ASA had notably already moved away from this position in recent years, focusing on overall pricing history rather than specific figures. It is therefore best to see this as a clarification of current principles rather than a change in position.

Some commentators have noted the focus on reference pricing and advised wariness when using RRPs. The new guidance contains a link to CAP guidance on the subject, which notes that even if the RRP has been given to you by the manufacturer, if you can’t demonstrate that it is actually sold at that price it’s likely to be considered misleading. Again, while some may be surprised to discover this information it has been a long-held principle.

So, if you’re already following best practice you shouldn’t need to make any changes. If any of the above is news to you however, now’s the time to brush up!

The ASA will continue using precedent to make rulings, but it’s worth keeping an eye on future cases to see whether they change direction at all. I’ll mention any significant rulings in my Legal Scoop which you can subscribe to on the IPM website, and of course they’re likely to come up as case studies in future IPM Legal Briefings.

If you’re an IPM member and have any questions you can contact Laura at laurak@theipm.org.uk

The post Guidance on Pricing Practices appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

The Institute of Promotional Marketing, the UK industry body for promotional marketing, has just celebrated the latest graduates on its key training courses, the IPM Certificate in Promotional Marketing, the IPM Diploma in Promotional Marketing and the IPM Incentive & Motivation Diploma.

Students on all three courses collected their certificates at a graduation ceremony at the House of Commons on Wednesday February 1^st 2017 from IPM President Lord Black of Brentwood and IPM Chairman John Sylvester in front of an audience of 120 people, including fellow students, family, friends and colleagues and course markers and mentors.

In her welcoming address, IPM Managing Director Carey Trevill stressed how important it is that marketers are fully grounded in all the skills, disciplines and mechanics that can be deployed in promotional campaigns.

Trevill said: “An IPM Diploma means expert. It means specialist. It means you understand your subject like no other and you have the right skills and grounding in the law, regulatory system and best practice to promote your clients and their brands effectively. It means that you are qualified to invest their money in activities that will grow their brands.”

In his speech, John Sylvester pointed out that the graduation was taking place on the same day as the historic vote in the House of Commons to trigger the Brexit process. “For marketers, expertise and professionalism have never been as important as they are in these historic times.”

The IPM Diploma is seen as the best possible grounding for anyone responsible for running promotions within the UK and mainland Europe. The course involves a series of assignments and a set brief that has to be completed within a six-month period.

Candidates leave the course with a foundation knowledge of promotional marketing necessary to understand the discipline’s role within integrated communications campaigns, including planning, instigating and managing effective promotional marketing concepts with confidence.

The IPM Incentive & Motivation Diploma is a qualification specifically designed for the reward and recognition industry. It takes the form of a distance learning programme with a range of modules covering different specialisations and a set brief, all of which have to be completed over a five-month period.

It provides a thorough understanding of incentive and motivation techniques and is widely recognised within the industry as the benchmark for best practice, ensuring that candidates are able to confidently plan, instigate and manage Incentive & Motivation campaigns.

The post IPM graduation 2017 appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Laura Kelly, Legal & Regulatory Advisor at the IPM, explains why changes to the CAP Code, the rules governing advertising and marketing in the UK, had to happen and the opportunities they offer to the promotions industry

The advertising and marketing industry is famed for many things; bringing to life brands, creating a huge economic impact, making us laugh or cry, making brands memorable. Marketing communications work – what we do has the power to influence people.

With great power, as always, comes great responsibility, a fact which the UK’s marketers have long realised. That’s why we have the CAP Code and the ASA to uphold it at the heart of a self-regulatory system which is recognised internationally as world class.

Our industry is constantly changing – take the way, over the past 20 years, that digital technology has completely revolutionised the way brands talk to consumers and made marketing, in some ways, far more powerful. Society changes as well – few of us do as much hard manual work as our grandparents did or get as much exercise.

As a result, our waistlines are expanding – and the particular worry is how our children are being affected. Obesity levels amongst the young are increasing.

Increased concern about obesity has led to a focus on advertising and marketing of calorie-rich food and drink, and there has been a keen interest in how we promote certain HFSS (High, Fat, Salt and Sugar) brands to children and families. We have seen accusations levelled at the marketing industry that what we do is making us fat and damaging our health.

Late in 2015, the Government launched its soft drinks taxation promise to help address the growing concern about obesity, centered on the high sugar intake of children. The Government promised the UK public that it would tackle the brands responsible.

Several months and many consultations later, the efforts of CAP, the Advertising Association and many other interested parties (including the IPM) have managed to prove that advertising does not in fact contribute in any significant way to the increase in obesity levels in children – other factors such as parental influence and the switch from physical activity to playing computer games bear far more responsibility.

However, the advertising and marketing industry recognises that there is much more it can do to help. To begin with, the industry decided to tackle at source the rules that govern the work we do.

The IPM, as part of the self-regulatory framework that governs UK broadcast and non-broadcast rules, was a key member of the consultation groups to examine the areas of critical understanding in children when looking at the effects of advertising and marketing messaging.

The outcome of this work has seen a CAP Code change that signals a huge change in the way brands can promote to under 16s and under 12s.

As a reminder:

• Ads that directly or indirectly promote an HFSS product cannot appear in children’s media;
• Ads for HFSS products cannot appear in other media where children make up over 25% of the audience;
• Ads for HFSS products will not be allowed to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities popular with children. Advertisers may, however, now use those techniques to better promote healthier options;
• The Department of Health nutrient profiling model will be used to classify which products are HFSS.

Creating a future for responsible promotion

At the IPM, over the past two years we have seen a shift towards more responsible promotion across the board, particularly FMCG brands. Being involved in this consultation has shown that the entire industry embraces this forward thinking approach and we are delighted to support the changes at the IPM.

These changes also bring opportunity. Restrictions on using promotions, licenced characters and celebrities in food ads directed at children have been loosened. They will now be permitted in ads for all non HFSS foods, giving marketers powerful new techniques to better promote healthier options.

With such a positive change happening across the industry, we can truly say we are part of the solution and not the problem. For a time, we were at real risk of losing our right to self-regulate and the IPM supports the new rules every step of the way.

The IPM will actively promote the rule changes from now on, so that brand owners are ready and able to implement media and promotional changes in advance of the new rules coming into effect.

Laura Kelly is Legal & Regulatory Advisor at the Institute of Promotional Marketing (IPM), advising marketers at client companies, agencies and suppliers on how to ensure that their promotional marketing activities are legal and that they conform to the CAP Code, the rules which marketing and advertising in the UK must follow under the country’s self regulatory system.

The IPM is holding a special webinar on Wednedsay 15th December in partnership with the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) to explain the changes to the CAP Code on HFSS food and drink marketing. Places are free and you can book your place here.

The post Why HFSS marketing needs to change appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Following a full public consultation, the Committee of Advertising Practice – CAP – has today announced tough new rules banning the advertising of high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) food or soft drink products in children’s media.

The rules will apply across all non-broadcast media including print, cinema, online and in social media, and CAP has stressed that they will also apply to ‘TV-like content’ online, such as on video-sharing platforms or advergames, if they are directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children.

One key benefit for the promotions industry is a clarification of the rules on marketing communications using promotional techniques, characters or celebrities to promote healthier options to children aged 11 and under.

Changes to the rules will mean advertisers will be able to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities in ads for non HFSS foods, allowing more creative ways for the industry to promote healthier food options to children and their families.

The new rules, which will apply in media targeted at under-16s, will come into effect on 1 July 2017.

In summary:

• Ads that directly or indirectly promote an HFSS product cannot appear in children’s media
• Ads for HFSS products cannot appear in other media where children make up over 25% of the audience
• Ads for HFSS products will not be allowed to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities popular with children; advertisers may now use those techniques to better promote healthier options
• The Department of Health nutrient profiling model will be used to classify which products are HFSS

This significant change is designed to help protect the health and wellbeing of children.

Bringing the non-broadcast advertising rules in line with the TV rules, the new restrictions will lead to a major reduction in the number of ads for HFSS food and drinks seen by children. And it will also mean ads for HFSS products will no longer be allowed to appear around TV-like content online, such as on video-sharing platforms or advergames, if they are directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children.

CAP’s review and the new rules come in response to wider concerns in society about childhood obesity and the public health challenges it poses. The new rules also respond to shifting media habits amongst young people and evolving advertising techniques which have fundamentally changed children’s relationship with media and advertising. Research from Ofcom shows that young people aged 5-15 are spending around 15 hours each week online – overtaking time spent watching a TV set for the first time.

There are many factors that have an impact on childhood obesity, and available evidence shows that the effect of advertising on children’s food preferences is relatively small, particularly when compared to other factors like parental influences; however, CAP believes that even a very small positive impact from these new ad restrictions could play a meaningful role in reducing potential harm to children.

Chairman of CAP, James Best said: “Childhood obesity is a serious and complex issue and one that we’re determined to play our part in tackling. These restrictions will significantly reduce the number of ads for high, fat, salt or sugar products seen by children. Our tough new rules are a clear demonstration that the ad industry is willing and ready to act on its responsibilities and puts the protection of children at the heart of its work.”

The IPM’s Managing Director Carey Trevill says: “With significant changes to the CAP Code, the IPM will be part of the story that changes the way advertising and marketing communications affect children today and tomorrow. We have an important part to play in the way our consumers view marketing communcations. Helping the wider community understand the steps we have taken as an industry can only lead to improved campaigns.”

Questions on what the changes mean for your campaigns? The IPM are running a webinar with their Legal Advisor, Laura Kelly and with CAP on December 15^th. Places are free and you can book yours here.

The post CAP changes HFSS food and drink ad and promo rules appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

The Institute of Promotional Marketing (IPM) has welcomed plans from the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) to tighten up the rules surrounding the advertising and marketing of High Fat Salt Sugar (HFSS) foods, particularly to children, and is encouraging the promotional marketing industry to contribute to CAP’s public consultation on the issue.

The IPM, which is a stakeholder in CAP, points out that there is growing pressure on the marketing industry to make effective changes in the way it promotes to children and families.

The IPM’s Managing Director, Carey Trevill, comments: “The IPM welcomes the suggested amendments to the CAP Code, in particular the additional clarity provided in the proposed revisions around HFSS (High Fat Salt and Sugar) foods and young audiences.”

Trevill adds that “this is a sensitive but important issue, and the suggested changes to the Code represents a recognition that the advertising and marketing industries can be part of the solution when it comes to getting the message out and addressing the country’s concerns around childhood, and adult, obesity.”

In passing, Trevill also highlighted the fact that the proposals include changing references in the CAP Code to use the term ‘promotional marketing’ instead of the term ‘sales promotion’. Trevill says: “We also welcome the revision to the code in amending language from sales promotion to promotional marketing. This dynamic industry has long been conducting campaigns with activations well beyond sales promotion outputs, and it is wonderful for this variety of work to be recognised in the Code.”

CAP is the body which writes the CAP Code, the rules governing advertising and marketing in the UK under the UK’s self-regulatory system. CAP has just opened a public consultation on its proposals, which include:

• Introducing a new rule to the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Direct and Promotional Marketing (the CAP Code) to limit where advertising for food and soft drink products high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS products) can be placed in all non-broadcast media, including traditional and online media;
• Banning HFSS product advertising in media targeted at, or of particular appeal to, children and whether that should apply to under 12s or under 16s;
• Appling the existing rules which prohibit the use of promotions and licensed characters and celebrities popular with children in food and drink advertising to advertising for HFSS products only, allowing more creative ways for healthier foods to be advertised to children.

The proposals to change the CAP Code follow on from research by ISBA (the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the body representing client companies into advertising and its effect on obesity, particularly in children. This found that available evidence shows that advertising has a modest effect on children’s food preferences, but other factors like parental influence, opportunities for physical exercise and education play greater roles in the causes of, and solutions to, childhood obesity.

The marketing industry has pledged to take the lead to prove that advertising and marketing are not the ‘villains’ in the issue. CAP argues that even a relatively small positive impact from new advertising restrictions could make a meaningful contribution to tackling this important health issue.

CAP’s public consultation closes at 5.00pm on July 22nd 2016. The full consultation document can be read here.

James Best, Chairman of CAP, says: “Too many children in the UK are growing up overweight or even obese, potentially damaging their health in later life and imposing a high cost on society. Advertising is just one small factor in a very complex equation but we believe we can play a positive part in addressing an urgent societal challenge. In proposing new rules, our aim is to strike the right balance between protecting children and enabling businesses to continue advertising their products responsibly.”

The IPM will be holding a webinar in the coming weeks to examine the changes and what these mean in practical terms for brands and agencies. A representative from CAP will be on hand during the webinar to answer your questions. Anyone interested in registering their interest for this webinar should visit the IPM website.

The IPM have further suggested that anyone wanting to understand more about the proposed changes and how they can comment, or to gain a better understanding of what the proposals may mean for their brands, can contact the IPM’s experts on contact@theipm.org.uk, or call 020 7291 7730.

The post CAP Code launches consultation appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Following this morning’s Select Committee statement regarding urgent action to be taken to reduce national obesity rates, the IPM has been working closely with other industry bodies about the role of advertising self-regulation to consider changes.

As part of CAP, the IPM has been working behind the scenes with a number of industry bodies as well as consulting across the industry in response to the obesity challenge set out by Government. The IPM will be seeking responses from its membership as a result, which spans brand owners, agencies and service agencies involved in promotional activation across a broad range of sectors.

With brand owners and their associated agencies, there sits a natural responsibility to market to all types of consumer in a manner that upholds the CAP code. The Select Committee views price promotions as being part of the overall obesity issue; the IPM believes its members take a responsible approach already and all seek to actively uphold CAP and IPM standards in this regard. As such, the IPM has committed time and resource to a coalition task force to look at the challenges facing both industry and consumers and to find a workable, responsible solution for all parties.

The IPM’s Managing Director Carey Trevill comments, ‘At the IPM, the industry initiative on obesity and the wider impact on children’s health is critical and taken very seriously. As part of CAP, we are actively supporting the role of advertising and marketing to help bring about the changes needed’.

In addressing the self-regulation aspect that is championed by the advertising community, Trevill comments further, ‘It’s the very fact that we do self-regulate that enables us to consider quickly and carefully how changes could be made.’

CAP and its members, which include IPM, ISBA, AA, DMA, IPA amongst others, are undertaking a pre-consultation, campaigning key industry and public health organisations prior to public consultation.

The IPM will be consulting its Membership within the next week in direct relation to the obesity crisis.

The post IPM upholds right to self-regulate appeared first on IPM Bitesize.