A story post and a post on influencers Molly-Mae Hague and Tommy Fury’s ‘@mollymaison’ Instagram account has breached Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code.
The home-ware giveaway posts told Instagram users that to enter the competition they would need to like and comment ‘follow @mollymaison’ on the post. Users were also told that if they shared the page post to their story they would receive an extra entry into the ‘random generator draw’.
However, it soon became apparent that due to the nature of private Instagram accounts – you cannot view private users’ stories if you are not a permitted follower – Molly-Mae Hague and Tommy Fury would have no way of knowing if private accounts had shared the post on their stories for an extra entry.
A complainant, who believed that not all entrants were included in the ‘final draw’ and so did not have an equal chance of winning, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly. The ASA itself also questioned whether the ad breached CAP Code because it omitted a significant condition of the promotion.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest marketing news sent straight to your inbox each morning
Molly-Mae Hague and her representatives responded by admitting that due to Instagram’s restrictions for private accounts, she would not have been able to see mentions in Instagram stories posted by those accounts, therefore meaning that private accounts would not make an additional entry into the draw. The influencer added that this information had not been included in the prize draw terms and conditions as it was a “standard feature of Instagram accounts”.
The advertising watchdog ultimately decided that because those Instagram accounts that met the criteria for a bonus entry would not increase their chances of winning the prize, the promotion was not administered fairly.
“That condition was not stated in the terms and conditions listed in the page post ad,” the ad authority added.
“We considered that this information was likely to significantly influence consumers’ understanding of the promotion, and was important so that they could make an informed choice about whether or not to enter. For that reason, we concluded that the promotion had breached the Code.”
