(I apologize for such a long post, but I encourage you to read this all the way to the end.)
Within a day after the post about the status of the Home Depot gift cards ("WHAT? ME WORRY?"), reports are in that Home Depot is requesting a signed affidavit before issuing the prizes. In reading through the comments for the aforementioned post, one writer seemed almost offended that the question about gift cards was asked. This response isn't entirely unique here at this blog. What is interesting to me is that most who come here to defend the conduct of this contest arrive with little to substantiate that the allegations made here are incorrect. Rather, they tend to either throw insults or seem irritated that anyone is bothering to follow up on what became a highly-contentious issue. Since the inception of this blog, I have practically begged for any substance that is a clear indicator that it was legal to allow a contestant to change their entry after-the-fact to avoid disqualification. Apparently that is too much to ask for some, since I have received very little in this regard.
But there are those who still feel unsatisfied by the reasoning offered by Home Depot/Imre Communications, and still crave answers. Which leads us to "The $25,000 Question". According to the affidavit there are no "winners" at this point, only "potential winners". To become a real "winner", you are required to affirm a few statements. One of them is this (emphasis added):
"I certify that I did not violate any state or federal laws prohibiting contest impropriety, that I did not receive any special or secret aid or assistance, and that I did not participate in any scheme to rig, fix or predetermine the outcome of the Sweepstakes I won."Considering that the winning video was allowed to re-edit their video to remove material that would disqualify them, does that indicate that they received "special or secret aid or assistance"? On the surface, it would seem so. Particularly when the contest rules say it is the ENTRANT'S responsibility to avoid copyrighted material. But, let's flash back for a moment to the point in time when Home Depot/Imre Communications announced that they would retain the Long video as the winning video, despite their need to re-edit to avoid disqualification. At the time, they justified their decision as such:
"Because we never identified any issues with the winning video when we reviewed it initially, we have recently given the winner the opportunity that all submitters have had - to make some minor adjustments to eliminate any potential compliance issues."Is this their attempt to legalize what many consider an unfair decision? If they can claim they did this for other "potential winners", does that nullify the "special or secret aid or assistance" issue? So far, I have heard of no entrant who was given the "privilege" of being notified of some rules infraction and allowed to re-edit, even though that very question had been posed to Home Depot almost immediately after the above announcement. Even if we concede to them allowing them to remove disqualifying material from their winning video, there are some glaring issues that seem without resolve. For instance:
- What of the issue of not allowing any video submissions after December 15th? Nobody else was given this "special assistance".
- What of the issue that 20% of the judging criteria is based on the number of views the video received? Upon re-submission, the winning video had a ZERO view count at the end of the contest.
Let's not forget that, in addition to the "potential" grand prize winner, there are more than 260 other individuals and families who entered this contest and are now being asked to sign the affidavit, whether $20 or $200 gift card winners. These families also worked hard on their entries, and must now also affirm their entry is on the "up-and-up" before claiming their prize. But before you take that last swipe of the pen and tuck your affidavit neatly into your envelope, remember that when they giveth, they also taketh away:
"I hereby release and discharge Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., its affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, officers, directors, employees and agencies from any and all liability for any taxes, injuries, damages, repairs or service or causes of action arising out of or in connection with this Sweepstakes or my acceptance and use of the prize awarded."With your "potential prize" goes any liability Home Depot/Imre has towards you with regard to any of their conduct. And so it goes... As always, feel free to click on the "profile" tab to the right and e-mail me questions or concerns.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:
A reader asks in the comments "what about the verbage in the contest rules that states that HD has the right to disqualify a contestant? this does not sound definitive and gives them some room for discretion." Well, certainly they should have the right to disqualify a contestant. But is that right the the same as the right to change the rules or criteria to "UN-DISQUALIFY" a contestant?
Another reader comments: "I'm a little uncomfortable with your attempts to take the $25,000 away from the winners". Don't confuse "following the rules" with "vendetta". The blog is was not formed to take any prize away from any winner. It was created in response to the uproar created by Home Depot/Imre Communications' decisions, not as an attack on the winners. The attempt at this blog has always been to find a way to justify the course of actions on the part of Home Depot/Imre Communications (there are laws to follow). I haven't found any solid explanations as of yet. Wouldn't it be great for Home Depot/Imre to make a public statement that legally discounts every point made here in the blog, and we'd all go "home"? From what I can gather, "mum's the word".
|