If you haven't already, be sure to scroll down and read all the posts about how Home Depot and IMRE Communications allowed a winning video to re-edit their video to conform to contest rules (after the contest was over) in their YouTube Gift Card contest.
You can count me among those who wish to believe that everything was on the "up-and-up" with the Home Depot contest. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong on every point I've made. But since this blog began (due mostly to the amazingly underwhelming response by Home Depot staff to the outcries from contestants), I've been less-than-convinced that their actions were allowable under contest law. It's difficult at times to keep track of all the facets involved; the winning video violating contest rules, Home Depot allowing a re-edit after the contest was over, message boards shut down, minimal response from Home Depot, another entrant disqualified, promotional journalists hired by Home Depot, and so on.
A reader has submitted what could be described as the "best hope" for Home Depot's actions. In it, they try to get "into the mind" of Home Depot (or, shall we say, into the mind of a lawyer who wants to protect Home Depot in every way possible). As much as some people like to portray this as some happy-go-lucky "mom-and-pop" contest, in reality there are teams of lawyers who help put these contests together, since there are laws that regulate these things. So, can some or all of their actions be brushed aside through legal fineprint? Let's take a look. I believe, as does the reader who offered these observations, that even if one were to give Home Depot the full benefit of legal fine print, their actions still raise ethical questions. But let's take a look. I'll paraphrase the meat of the message (emphasis added):
[1] JUSTIFYING CHANGING THE WINNING VIDEO, AFTER THE CONTEST WAS OVER:
WHAT THE RULES SAY: "Sponsor reserves the right to cancel, terminate, modify or suspend this Contest in the event that this Contest is not capable of running as planned, including infection by computer virus, bugs, tampering unauthorized intervention, fraud, technical failures, or any other causes beyond the control of Sponsor which corrupt or affect the administration, security, fairness, integrity or proper conduct of this Contest."[2] JUSTIFYING DELETING COMMENTS ON YOUTUBE THAT CONFRONTED THEIR DECISION:
MY ANALYSIS: To me, this seems as though this would be meant to protect the forward momentum of the contest, eliminate fraudulant votes, and the like. Not to rework the contest rules after it was over. It would also seem to favor the line that changes be made to ensure GREATER fairness and integrity, not just allow a convenient "do-over" for Home Depot. Am I naive to assume that?
RULES: "Sponsor reserves the right to reject any entries or comments that violate the YouTube Terms of Use stated above, and/or contain any message that, in our sole opinion, harasses or threatens any individual; is obscene, illegal or otherwise objectionable."[3] JUSTIFYING THE RE-EDIT OF THE WINNING VIDEO:
MY ANALYSIS: This one seems succinct enough to qualify as a "devil in the details" excuse to delete the comments from the YouTube message board that contradicted their opinion. I would concede to this one, and will submit my own acknowledgement that they could probably legally delete whatever messages they wanted to. That said, is this the best way to handle entrant complaints? When multiple people express outrage and demand answers, was it the best move to offer no further response, then delete their messages, then shut down the message board altogether when the going gets tough? From a company who was recently voted one of the "Most Hated" companies in 2007, it doesn't seem like a very wise move, but perhaps this mentality is what contributes to their dubious honor.
RULES: "All winners must meet the eligibility requirements set forth in these rules in order to qualify for the prize."[4] SHUFFLING THEM INTO "OFFICIAL" VICTORY:
MY ANALYSIS: This seems a stretch, but if we are to suspend ethical boundaries, is this a way to say that they can adjust whatever they want in order to qualify for the prize? I tend to disagree on this one. To me it seems to say "check out all the eligibility requirements (i.e., no copyrighted stuff, etc.) and if the video does not satisfy the rules, it's disqualified. Gray area at best.
RULES: "As a condition of winning the prizes, all potential winners must complete, sign and return an affidavit verifying (1) originality of the entry (2) eligibility and a (3) liability and publicity release, where permitted by law, and any other applicable forms required by a taxing authority within ten (10) days of receipt of written prize notification or prizes will be forfeited and an alternate winner selected."So, there you have it. An attempt to justify Home Depot's actions using a broad interpretation of their own contest rules. It was a good exercise in trying to flush out what might be going on here. But I have to say, even after REALLY TRYING to legalize this whole thing, it would seem to give a broader impression of extremely loose ethical boundaries on the part of Home Depot. The best I could do is feel better knowing that they could probably legally delete all the controversial YouTube messages (though I don't condone it). I still leave the discussion table thinking that there are too many statements in the contest rules that say in effect "YOU, the ENTRANT are responsible for not including ANYTHING in your video that might get us, Home Depot, in trouble, and you better be able to sign your name on the dotted line stating that very thing". I find nothing that definitively says that Home Depot is responsible for figuring out if you have complied with the rules. Yet that is exactly the excuse Home Depot given everybody; that they were only giving the Long family the same chance they gave everyone, and that is to make your video "legal".
MY ANALYSIS: The reader's point here being that maybe, maybe, they have spun through all the steps necessary to make them a "potential" winner. Now all they need to do is have them sign off, and it's a done deal. Perhaps these are the interpretations going on. But my take on it would be that this is a "cover-your-butt" for Home Depot, in that they want all the winners to sign an affidavit saying that, assuming Home Depot didn't catch it already, you are liable for anything that would in essence disqualify your entry.
Perhaps a word of advice to the lawyers at Home Depot/IMRE Communications... next time add in something like this, and blogs like this will never exist:
"Sponsor is responsible for catching violations in entrant's video. If Sponsor fails to identify material in entrant's video that fails to comply with contest rules by December 15, 2007, Sponsor will immediately instruct entrants with regard to what material needs to be changed in order to comply with said rules. Entrant will be given two (or more) days to complete changes. If there is additional material that is NOT identified by Sponsor even after this stage, then entrant alone shall be responsible for all legal complications that arise from use of video."
