Automated Competition Entry Site Ignores Promoter Rules

Posted on: May 5th, 2011 by Jason 5 Comments

We make no apologies for continuing our blogging on Automated Competition Entry Services, but this is a follow up to our Was Your Competition Targeted by Automated Entries in April. In our monthly round up blogs we comment mainly on two of the known Automated Competition Entry Services… a third which lists “a selection of online competitions they are currently entering members in” gets away scot free.

Until today!

By looking at the list of competitions that they’re entering for their members against competitions listed on Loquax, we’ve been able to discover what we believe are the identities of sites being targeted. And there’s some interesting revelations.

Ignoring The Rules

Amongst the sites we believe getting entries from this site that claims to win for you are Toysrus, Kitchen Garden, Marie Claire, Harvey Nichols, The Guardian, Costcutter, Play.com, Holiday Inn, Rohantime, Zoo Weekly, Energy Saving Trust, Next and Sacla.

Time limits us to do a full check, but whilst checking the sites listed we noted that a number do say they don’t accept automated entries.

On Costcutter – “Only one entry per person. Bulk/third party entries will not be accepted”.
On Next – “No bulk entries or entries from third parties will be accepted”.
On Sacla – “Entries submitted by automated competition entry mechanisms are not eligible and will be deleted”.
On ToysRUs – “Entry is strictly limited to one entry per person. Entries from agents or third parties are invalid”.

This means that either (1) sites are aware of these kind of automated sites and are deleting entries, therefore customers of this service are wasting their money or (2) sites claim to be aware of these things but are allowing these automated services to make entries. Which ever is fact, this automated entry service is totally ignoring the rules of the promoters.

The site in question doesn’t seem to believe it’s fine earning money for doing entries for those willing to pay. “Having someone else enter for you isn’t against the rules, we’re providing exactly the same information you would if you entered yourself”. Except, bulk entries and third party entries are (or at least should be) invalid.

What it also does tell us is that promoters need to be more vigilant about their entries. Putting “no bulk entries, third party entries, automated entries” etc in the rules doesn’t seem to be a deterrent.


Join The Conversation

  • KIERAN WALSH 1949

    it is not fair, on the comper, or the promoter, , we seem to have gone down in stages, first most entries were in supermarkets ect, then tiebreakers, now internet free prize draw, thank you for bringing this to our attention, but how do we stop this, while people sign up to these sites, if there was anyway that bulk entry, e-mail, could be barred, but it is easy to change e-mail, there was one site, cant remember, but they wont take Hotmail entries, for that reason

  • jayanna

    Something For The Wickend put the following at the end of an email I rec’d today, which shows they’re fighting against these services. I hope they don’t mind me sharing it on here.

    “Please note we do not allow entries from automated entry systems. All entries from these sources will be disallowed. I have disallowed 2000+ entries in the past week. To enter you must visit our website. I believe it makes it fairer for those that do, increasing their chances of winning, and fairer on us – after all getting visitors is the reason why we have these draws in the first place. :)”

  • prizes343

    One of the sites mentioned above, The Guardian, seem to be quite clued up stating “If it becomes apparent that a participant is using a computer(s) to circumvent this condition by the use of, for example, ‘script’, ‘brute force’ or any other automated means, that participant will be disqualified and any prize award will be void”. Let’s hope this is true and enforced.

    They even say “Entries on behalf of another person will not be accepted” for the people that think ‘one entry per person’ means enter for everyone they know.

    You’re doing a great job. Long may the blogs on automated entries continue – the more awareness that is created the better things will be in the future!

  • Ennill1

    Considering competitions are a form of marketing, the promoters need to sit up and take notice of what is going on – they are wasting money if they don’t put a stop to automated entries. I don’t think they gain much from twitter or facebook comps either as they are (whether they know it or not) targeting largely people who have time to be on their pc all day (as in limited time comps). I’ve entered several twitter comps (and some facebook ones that I can get my head around), won a couple of small items, but to be honest, I’ve never visited their sites – it if only requires me to ‘follow & RT’ or ‘like’ on facebook, why should I? But I can honestly say I have visited and bought from several sites I was directed to by Loquax to enter a comp.

    Maybe making competitions more time consuming to enter would cut out automated entries, as in sending an e-mail to the entrant directing them to do something further to confirm their entry (at least it could double or treble the work the automated entry sites do) – say they send you an e-mail asking for the missing line in your address – asking you to do a DNA test…. I know I am being silly, but you know there is probably a simple but v clever solution out there somewhere – there usually is.

  • judithsbooks

    It is good to hear that some more companies are aware of these entries. Perhaps it will get better for compers soon.

top