Winner Uses Contest Site and Loses Grand Prize

The reason given was that he had used an online contest forum, a Web site where people who enter crowdsourced digital sweepstakes post links to those contests and ask members to vote for them.

Oh boy :nono:

Brands are caught between wanting to drive traffic to their Facebook pages by encouraging consumer voting and managing how those votes are obtained, Ms. Grauschopf said.
 
Hmmm. . . . .. This makes no sense at all. I thought the reason for contests was marketing, bringing interest, traffic, and ultimately more sales to the product. This gentleman did all of these for the company, by posting his video. :scratch:
 
kristina219 said:
Wonder if they will award it to some one else or did they keep the $100K
Click to expand...


There ARE some sponsors who will not attempt to re-award, and I've seen some where they don't even guarantee that they will award the prize unless strict parameters are met, which have longer odds than hitting the lottery, but...

In Mr. Scott’s case, Gold Peak Tea chose another entrant’s submission as the winner, despite a number of posts on the company’s Facebook page calling for Mr. Scott to be reinstated as the winner. (Gold Peak Tea has removed some of the posts related to Mr. Scott’s case citing its decency rules for the Facebook page.)


Besides being time/resource intensive {lol - I'm laaaaaaaaaazy} vote contests always struck me as "prom queen" types of promos, and I avoid them. Seeing a sponsor bow to public pressure on this just validates my laziness. :whistle:
 
I think since it clearly stated in the rules you could not use the technique Mr Scott used that he violated the rules knowingly. He was rightfully disqualified IMHO. I recently read a post on here from a sweeper who said they had entered a contest and were neck and neck with another sweeper for first place. Overnight this sweeper lost and they felt it was unfair because this person was getting votes in the early morning hours and felt it was due to this type of 'voting'. To me it is unfair for an honest, play by the rules person to lose against someone who did not follow the rules. Just my thoughts. I hope someone who played fair won the Gold Peak contest.
 
sweepsgirlwinner said:
I think since it clearly stated in the rules you could not use the technique Mr Scott used that he violated the rules knowingly. He was rightfully disqualified IMHO. I recently read a post on here from a sweeper who said they had entered a contest and were neck and neck with another sweeper for first place. Overnight this sweeper lost and they felt it was unfair because this person was getting votes in the early morning hours and felt it was due to this type of 'voting'. To me it is unfair for an honest, play by the rules person to lose against someone who did not follow the rules. Just my thoughts. I hope someone who played fair won the Gold Peak contest.
Click to expand...

Thing is? That member used the vote forum here at SA, which, from what I gather, is how the GP winner won, then lost - by trading a vote for a vote.

It's rare people will help another out of the goodness of their heart, so quid pro quo on votes is the norm.

Sponsors need to clarify - and they need to think long and hard about letting sore losers take the prize from the winners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top