HPLASOps From , joined today!, posts, RR: Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 314 times:
I just got done drinking my bottle of Pepsi only to realize I didn't have a winning cap. Then, upon perusing the official rules of the contest, this question came to mind: Why does the rule "No purchase necessary" exist in certain contests, especially in fast food/soda ones?
First, what is wrong with requiring someone to purchase the product in order to participate? These contests are not government sponsored, there is no involvement with charity - it is a capitalistic contest run by a private company with the intent to increase sales. I see no harm in requiring someone to purchase the product to participate.
Second, is there really anyone who will mail in a request for a gamepiece, wait three weeks, and then check the mail to find out their piece is a loser? No kidding, you mean you requested a gamepiece without buying the company's product and you got a losing piece? No way!
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8280 posts, RR: 20 Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 301 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Yes, we have the same thing in the UK.
I was told it's basically something to do with gambling laws in the UK - if a purchase is required it would officially be gambling (or something along those lines), whereas with no purchase required it's just a "lucky draw".
Makes me laugh when it's something like a prize inside a pack of crisps. I always have visions of opening every packet of crisps in the supermarket to look for prizes "Well it said no purchase necessary!"
Nighthawk From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Sep 2001, 3707 posts, RR: 28 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 294 times:
I always just assumed it meant that you do not have to provide proof of purchase when you claim the prize....
"Thats why you need people like me in the secret service" Random Drunk. Manchester. 01/08
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8280 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 285 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 2): I always just assumed it meant that you do not have to provide proof of purchase when you claim the prize....
No, it's definitely a case of not needing to purchase the product to enter the competition. There are normally alternative means of entering - phone call or web site.
Banco From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 273 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 1): I was told it's basically something to do with gambling laws in the UK - if a purchase is required it would officially be gambling (or something along those lines), whereas with no purchase required it's just a "lucky draw".
Correct. That's exactly why it's in the format it is. If it qualifies as gambling, it opens up a whole can of worms for the promoter, including having to have a gambling licence. It was a clever person who first came up with this way of doing it.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
HPLASOps From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 248 times:
Quoting Banco (Reply 4): If it qualifies as gambling, it opens up a whole can of worms for the promoter, including having to have a gambling licence.
Can the law be written to exclude such contests from the context of gaming? Surely this could be done given that most anti-gaming states allow for lotteries and horse racing, which is essentially gambling.
Perhaps re-write the rule to read along the lines of "If expected revenue generated from said contest is less than 20% of total expected annual revenue, contest operator does not require gambling license."
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 1): I was told it's basically something to do with gambling laws in the UK - if a purchase is required it would officially be gambling (or something along those lines), whereas with no purchase required it's just a "lucky draw".
But that was one of my original points - they are not going to put a winning gamepiece in something other than the product. The winning pieces are going to be randomly placed WITHIN the product. When someone requests a gamepiece, the company only has to send the game itself, not the product - so all they have to do is just generate another losing gamepiece. That's not a "lucky draw."
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 1): I always have visions of opening every packet of crisps in the supermarket to look for prizes "Well it said no purchase necessary!"
I should try that sometime at the risk of getting anal probed by the store manager.
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8280 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 223 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 5): But that was one of my original points - they are not going to put a winning gamepiece in something other than the product. The winning pieces are going to be randomly placed WITHIN the product. When someone requests a gamepiece, the company only has to send the game itself, not the product - so all they have to do is just generate another losing gamepiece. That's not a "lucky draw."
This is an assumption, but I think a logical one. There are probably rules about how to handle the people who want to enter the competition but don't buy the product.
I gave my "in a packet of crisps" example as it was the last such competition I could remember - a certain brand of crisps had £5 notes inside some packets. Now, in order for this not to be gambling, people have to be able to enter the "competition" without buying the product, so my assumption is that a proportion of the prizes have to go to those who enter by means other than purchase.
But yes, the cynical side of me would suspect that by "pure chance", all winners just happened to purchase the product.
RichardPrice From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 213 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 6): Now, in order for this not to be gambling, people have to be able to enter the "competition" without buying the product, so my assumption is that a proportion of the prizes have to go to those who enter by means other than purchase.
In most of those cases, an item of confectionary that the competition is associated with is opened by qualified staff - jsut the same as if you had bought a packet.
Banco From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 208 times:
Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 5): Can the law be written to exclude such contests from the context of gaming? Surely this could be done given that most anti-gaming states allow for lotteries and horse racing, which is essentially gambling.
Firstly, you have to remember that gambling isn't illegal here. Many High Streets will have a bookmakers on it, so there's no need to try to "get round" gambling laws for such things as horse racing (lotteries operate under slightly different rules) anywhere in the UK, totally different to the US. If you want to set up a bookie, go for it, there's nothing to stop you apart from having to register it and pay the accordant costs. Thus there's no need to change the law. "No purchase necessary" draws operate perfectly well the way they are constituted.
Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 5): When someone requests a gamepiece, the company only has to send the game itself, not the product - so all they have to do is just generate another losing gamepiece. That's not a "lucky draw."
Just to add to the reply already given, if you wish to partake in a competition without purchasing the product, a random packet of crisps (for example) is opened in front of independent witnesses to verify all is above board.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined today!, posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8280 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Sep 2001, 3707 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
