Monday 20 July, 2009 by jean
Leave a reply →
I am challenging the decision of this winning entry.
In the terms and conditions, in bold writing, you clearly state closing date for entry’s is the 17th of July at 5 p.m.
By your own admission, you clearly state ‘Katie’s’ entry has a Timestamp: 2009-07-19 17:20:57 UTC. This is my eyes is 5.20 p.m. on the 19th of July 2009.
Can you explain this for me please ?
I am currently constructing a formal complaint to the advertising standards agency regarding this issue, but will await your reply prior to commiting my time and resources to lodging a formal complaint.
Before you waste too much time on your formal complaint (!) I thought I’d point out that Katie was the 38th person to enter the competition (you were the 192nd) so she was well & truly entered before the closing date.
I imagine the date stamp refers to when the winner was randomly picked.
It was a freebie competition which you entered at a total cost to yourself of the 5 seconds it took to write your name and click ‘Submit’. Even if there had been a genuine mistake on Jean’s part (and I’m sure you’re not accusing her of deliberately bending the rules), who cares? It’s free chocolate, wish the winner well.
More to the point, if you look at the actual competition post you’ll see the the 195th and final entry was posted on July 17th at 4.50pm, well within the designated time. The timestamp above is the when the winning entry was pulled out of an electronic hat.
Congratulations on your chocolate, Katie!
Paul – it’s hard to know whether to take this seriously or not, it does kind of sound like you’re having a laugh. But I’ll treat this as a genuine complaint, just in case.
You’ve absolutely got the wrong end of the stick. The time and date above refers to the time and date that I picked the winner using random.org. I include the date to show that the random number was picked after the close of the competition.
I hope that is adequate explanation. Of course, you could have figured it out yourself by looking at the comments on the competition post (as the other commenters here did, thanks guys!) instead of throwing daft accusations around, but never mind, no harm done.
You know they sell Galaxy bars in the shop too, don’t you Paul? It sounds like your blood sugar might be a bit low.
I am challenging the nature of this entry.
in bold writing, you clearly state in your tweet that links to this post that it is in fact, hilarious. I contend that it is, at best, somewhat amusing. Titters are not an acceptable form of redress, therefore you owe me at last one belly laugh, although at a push I will accept several (more than three) sniggers.
Several (more than three) Snickers would also be acceptable.
Guys – you’ll have to forgive me for my rather silly remarks yesterday. I was only having a laugh (I honestly didnt expect people to write back)…
Particularly found Sarah and Jean’s comments hilarious…Touche to both of you !
Of course my fullest and sincerest of congrats goes out to Katie…well done and enjoy. Galaxy is my favourite chocolate (I tend not to eat it much but the galaxy brand has always a place in my heart).
Thanks again for all your comments, I am sorry to have made anybody believe I was serious and take care.
Nice one Paul – ha ha!
I did suspect that there was a tongue in a cheek somewhere, as you’ll see from the first line of my comment. But it’s much more fun to pretend these things are serious. 🙂
Conor: my tweet said the post was ‘Hilarious’. Not ‘Hilarious!’ The absence of the exclamation point indemnifies me from all reader disappointment, and liability for compensatory mirth. It’s in the EU!!! Directive no 784.
I had no idea I was so controversial! I can’t wait to get my chocolate and I’ll enjoy every piece. I’ll be thinking of you Paul when that chocolate is melting in my mouth 🙂
Love your competitions!