THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS?

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."

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?

[2] JUSTIFYING DELETING COMMENTS ON YOUTUBE THAT CONFRONTED THEIR DECISION:

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."

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.

[3] JUSTIFYING THE RE-EDIT OF THE WINNING VIDEO:

RULES: "All winners must meet the eligibility requirements set forth in these rules in order to qualify for the prize."

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.

[4] SHUFFLING THEM INTO "OFFICIAL" VICTORY:

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."

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.

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".

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."

A REMINDER FOR HOME DEPOT

It would seem Home Depot needs to dust off their virtual copy of company ethics, or at least read it a couple more times, because after I read through it, there seem to be some glaring contradictions between the document and reality. From what I can tell, they did not run this contest in compliance with the law. Do you have any information to say otherwise? Let's take a look at what Home Depot itself says (emphasis added):

"The Home Depot has a strong commitment to ethics and integrity, and our core values define the means by which we do business. Each day we are challenged to be fair and consistent, to be compliant with the laws that govern our activities, and to notify others when something needs to be corrected."
...
"Doing the right thing while performing your job may not always seem the easiest choice or the most expedient way, but it is always the only choice and the only way."
...
"It is our mission to be a good corporate citizen and to serve each community in which The Home Depot conducts business. We will obey the laws and respect the customs of each community and will encourage participation and involvement in community affairs"
...
"It is everyone’s responsibility to comply with all of the laws that govern The Home Depot’s activities, and to adhere to our Corporate Compliance Policies, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and other Company standards at all times."
...
"Each Director, Officer and Associate should always deal fairly with the Company’s customers, suppliers, competitors and Associates. None of us should take unfair advantage of anyone through manipulation, concealment, abuse of privileged information, misrepresentation of material facts, or any other unfair practice."
...
"Do not use or copy a trademark, copyrighted material, trade secret or patented invention of another"
...
"Violations of the law, this Policy or any of our Corporate Compliance Policies may expose Directors, Officers, Associates and the Company to civil and criminal liability."
...
"Anyone who violates the Company’s policies is subject to discipline up to and including termination. These disciplinary measures apply equally to those who condone improper or illegal conduct by another Associate. Associates may report Policy violations or other concerns to their Manager, the Corporate Compliance Team or anonymously, through the Company’s AwareLine at (800) 286-4909."
...
"The Company will not tolerate any retaliation or threats of retaliation against anyone that reports in good faith a violation or suspected violation of the law, any Company Policy or the Business Code of Conduct and Ethics."

And to put this in perspective, I'll repeat some of what's in the post below, entitled "Food For Thought". In it I examine one perspective on contest law. Remember, according to Home Depot's own rules, any entry that contains copyrighted material should be disqualified, but they allowed it to be re-edited instead:

... Certainly, the rules should include protections for the promotion sponsor, such as limitations on the number of entries permitted and the manner in which entries may be submitted (e.g., precluding bulk-mail entries). The promotion rules should be written carefully, because the sponsor will be legally bound to adhere to them once the promotion begins.
...
Eligibility should also be conditioned on compliance with the Official Rules.
...
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that the creativity and low-cost of the Internet as a medium should not be an excuse to avoid legal compliance. If anything, it should up the ante, as the reach of the Internet is incredibly broad, and legal compliance becomes all the more important when one’s promotional campaign may be virally emailed all across cyberspace.

A NEW "REALITY SHOW"

If you haven't done so already, be sure to scroll down to read all the posts regarding Home Depot's $25,000 YouTube Gift Card contest, and how they allowed the winning video to re-edit AFTER the contest was over, just to avoid being disqualified.

While the winning video was cute and catchy... a Home Depot marketer's dream... the question is: How far can a company legally go to keep their favorite a winner? Can they bend the rules? Make special rules? Or are they required, as I presume, to follow their Official Rules to the letter? (NOTE: Home Depot has since deleted their rules from the YouTube site, but you can read them here if you scroll down)

Home Depot disqualified another video (the Bork family) for rules violation. As Home Depot stated, they are "legally obligated to follow the rules", in fairness to the 260+ other entrants. When they then allowed an entrant to re-edit their video to avoid being disqualified, AFTER the contest was over, well... many people had some strong opinions. Here are some things that some of the 260+ other entrants have e-mailed me, after the official winner was announced. It's a tale of how this affected many of the people who worked hard for their chance to win:

"This whole thing upset me...I feel like me and my family wasted our time now...I feel like this contest was fake."

"Wow, that is unbelievable, can they legally let that happen, aren't they violating their own rules??!?!"

"I noticed they have shut down the message board..tells me they want it all to go away."

"I, too am appalled at HD's behavior. I was able to read the main discussion thread this morning before all the discussions were removed completely. Do you know if HD has done anything beyond issuing the lame excuse?"

"I was reading up on all the controversy today and HD's lame response/excuse...then they suddenly took down all the discussion threads! Very, very poor showing by HD."

"This was a big HD blunder !"

"Excuse me. My head just exploded."

I've also received a few comments in support of Home Depot, like these:

"I think it's a great video. I think it's great that companies like Home Depot have these contests and pay 20K. I think it's great that HD saw the great video - and allowed the video makers to make it 100% legal"

"I don't really care about 3 or 4 Home Depot employees missing some copywrited material in a home movie. Sure, maybe the family that won may not have been the most needy, but the movie was cute and fun."

Regarding that last quote, you can be sure there were more than 3 or 4 employees involved in this contest, to comply with regulations intended to ensure a legally run contest... I get the feeling that there were a few people involved that were in way over their head in this contest, then others were forced to bury this as quickly and quietly as possible. It didn't quite work out as they had hoped, I would imagine. Do you have a comment? Let us know.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S "MORE"!

I revisited the Home Depot YouTube contest page to see if anything might have been posted since last I checked. There were no discussion groups, but this graph caught my eye.



I don't recall the text that Home Depot purposefully posted in bold being part of the original feedback instructions, and the emphasis seemed unusually over-explanatory. I'll have to do some more research on historical versions of the site. Why take the time to add "more than one week after the contest ends"? Wouldn't someone typically say "Discussion Forums will be closed on 12/26/07" and leave it at that? It feels a bit like Home Depot felt the need to go the extra mile and justify their decision to shut down all the message boards. Is this another "after-the-fact" explanation as to their actions, similar to their "after-the-contest" explanation that they will allow their chosen video to re-edit to meet contest rules? My guess is that they couldn't take the heat from the posts that were questioning the contest's outcome. What do you think? I want to be proven wrong, so if you have any information contradicting this, please let me know, and I'll post an update.

ONE OF 2007'S "MOST HATED COMPANIES"

Be sure to scroll down to get up-to-date on all the controversy surrounding Home Depot's $25,000 YouTube contest, in which they allowed the winning video to re-edit their entry AFTER the contest was over, in order to meet their own contest rules.

If you scroll down down far enough, you'll read the post regarding IMRE Communications getting involved in this promotional contest. This was their first time operating a YouTube contest, but not the first time they have been hired by Home Depot. Home Depot has had a tough time with their company image, noted especially by the AOL Money and Finance poll that, with over 200,000 votes, pegged Home Depot as one of the most hated companies in for 2007. (More analysis here) Given that dubious title, and because this YouTube contest was all about promoting their Gift Cards and building their brand, you would think this would trigger extra safeguards to ensure they conduct their promotions with the utmost in accuracy and response to all the contest entrants. It would appear that wasn't the case.

I'm interested in seeing how Home Depot has portrayed this contest results, since they haven't said a peep about it on the YouTube site that I am aware of. If anyone is aware of official press releases given by Home Depot regarding this contest, and how they presented it to the media, please let me know. Maybe we'll luck out and Manish Shrivastava, President, Home Depot Incentives will stop by and let us know.

For reference, here's the Press Release they published when the contest was underway.

COMMENTS RE-STARTED

After a brief down in the comments section, I have re-activated comments here. I am hoping there will be more civility this time. Please try to stick to the contest issues. Enjoy.

A COMMENT ON COMMENTS

Happy New Year! If you haven't done so already, I strongly encourage you to scroll down to catch all the posts regarding Home Depot's $25,000 YouTube Contest, and how they allowed the winning video to re-edit AFTER the contest to remove shots that should have disqualified them according to contest rules. I've reposted the video comparison below, since it can get lost in the threads. The bottom-most post will fill you in on many details.

Note to all: For the time being, I have shut down comments to posts here, since some visitors went on a comment binge and simply couldn't maintain a civilized discussion about the contest itself, going so far as to try to impersonate me. However, as always, your e-mails are welcome (just click on the profile to the right).

Speaking of e-mails, this from a reader:

I was just reading about this Hannah Montana contest: I know the circumstances are different. The winner of this one purposely lied. But I couldn't help thinking that if Home Depot was in charge of this contest they would have just let the lady rewrite her essay to make minor changes...like removing the part about her dad being killed in Iraq. Can you imagine how pissed off people would have been if that happened?

Therein lies one objective of this blog... to find answers and keep this from happening again by Home Depot or anyone else. Sadly, I have yet to receive any information to disprove the bulk of my observations. To their credit, the organizers of the Hannah Montana contest did not award the prize to the entrant when this information was discovered (quoting from MSNBC).

"After awarding the grand prize, we unfortunately learned that the statements made in the essay were untrue," she said in the statement. "Club Libby Lu greatly values honestly and integrity. In order to uphold these values, we have decided to withdraw the award initially given to the Ceballos family."

But to add to the reader's quote above, I would gather from what I've read, there are already plenty of "pissed off people" in this $25,000 scenario.

And then there's this e-mail from another reader in support of Home Depot's actions:

While I am one who appreciates a good public forum debate on issues pertainant to you me and those around us, please do not forget that we are dealing with a family of four-the Longs-who work hard everyday and, contrary to what some opponants have written, will certainly value a $25000 gift certificate to make renovations to their home.

This has been stated numerous times, but just to clarify, this blog is in no way intended as some sort of crusade against the Long family (who created the winning video). This blog is intended to address what could be described as "insider influence" in determining the contest outcome, and the process of legally adhering to Home Depot's own contest rules. As Home Depot has said, it would be unfair to the 260 other entrants not to do so. Ultimately, Home Depot/IMRE Communications are responsible for the outcome of the contest and the legal application of the rules.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

If you haven't already, scroll down to read about the highly-controversial Home Depot contest on YouTube, and see video proof of the modifications they allowed AFTER the contest was over, just to keep the winner compliant with their own rules.

Speaking of rules... since there have been a few people who have sought to minimize this whole scenario by claiming it was "Home Depot's money and contest, it was artistic expression - so leave them alone" (eerily reminiscent of the "Leave Britney Alone!" on YouTube); remember contests are very much regulated. Read this excerpt from a document on venable.com regarding internet contests (emphasis added):

Rules. There should be a set of rules that promotion participants can read and understand, and which should be provided, or at least disclosed, when the promoter notifies consumers about the promotion. The rules should clearly and accurately explain who is qualified to participate, how the promoter will run the promotion and choose the winner(s), what the prize(s) will be, the value of the prize(s), and the deadline for entry. The rules should also include the odds of winning, or an estimate of the probable number of people who will be eligible to participate. In addition, the rules should also explain the free method of entry if some entrants may also be making a purchase.

Certainly, the rules should include protections for the promotion sponsor, such as limitations on the number of entries permitted and the manner in which entries may be submitted (e.g., precluding bulk-mail entries). The promotion rules should be written carefully, because the sponsor will be legally bound to adhere to them once the promotion begins.

...

Eligibility should also be conditioned on compliance with the Official Rules.

...

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that the creativity and low-cost of the Internet as a medium should not be an excuse to avoid legal compliance. If anything, it should up the ante, as the reach of the Internet is incredibly broad, and legal compliance becomes all the more important when one’s promotional campaign may be virally emailed all across cyberspace.

Also, if you want to read a "snapshot" of many of the comments that were on Home Depot's YouTube channel (the ones that were screaming foul play, before they removed them), go to another blog who is equally concerned about the contest http://hdexposed.blogspot.com/

ADDENDUM: THE STATUTE CHALLENGE

If you haven't read it already, scroll down to read all of the drama that unfolded when Home Depot allowed a contest entrant to change their video AFTER the contest was over, just to allow them to maintain their "win".

NOTE: It was called to my attention that since nobody has yet been able to substantiate Home Depot's/IMRE Communications' actions as legal, we should not only be looking for statutes that would explain that what Home Depot did was LEGAL, but also for statutes that would explain that what Home Depot did was ILLEGAL. By that, I mean statutes, prior cases, or documents from contest administrator organizations. Thanks to those who have e-mailed me some very interesting stuff. Since e-mail seems to be the venue of choice for people, the e-mail address to send these to is posted under the "profile" section. Good luck!

TODAY'S CHALLENGE: FIND THE STATUTE

If you haven't seen the side-by-side analysis of the winning video of the Home Depot $25,000 contest, scroll down to the other posts. You won't want to miss it!

It has been almost two weeks since the Home Depot $25,000 gift card contest ended. If you're not familiar with what's going on, scroll down to read the posts. Since the beginning of this blog, I have been practically begging people to give me some sort of statute or legal explanation as to why Home Depot would allow an entrant to re-edit their video to comply with their rules, after the contest was over. In fact, I really am begging now. Like many, I have enjoyed shopping at Home Depot and I looked at their contest as a refreshing holiday activity, with friendly competitiveness. I was surprised, as were many other people, when the rules seemed bent or completely ignored, just to retain a particular video as the winner. I've received many posts and e-mails... both in support and in opposition of this blog. But I have yet to hear from anyone from Home Depot or anyone else with definitive legal rationale... only that Home Depot claims to be doing for the winners what they would do for anyone else. But isn't that a favor, not a legal underpinning? So, that leads us to today's challenge... although it is one for deep thinkers, so be warned...

THE CHALLENGE: Are you a lawyer? Do you know a lawyer? Have you ever wanted to be a lawyer? Best yet, are you on the legal team of Home Depot or IMRE Communications? If so, I would be most grateful if you can provide any sort of legal statute (Georgia preferred) that dictates that Home Depot could legally allow someone to reconform their video after the contest is over. I haven't found anything yet, Home Depot hasn't responded to me, and I'm eager to post a complete correction and pull this blog off the web if I can. Keep those e-mails coming.

UPDATE: It looks like Home Depot has deleted their contest rules from their YouTube web site... interesting... not the videos, just the rules for the contest. So, to help you out (emphasis added in areas of interest):

OFFICIAL RULES
HOME DEPOT HOLIDAY
GIFT CARD CONTEST
OFFICIAL RULES
NO PURCHASE OF ANY KIND IS NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. MAKING A
PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING. VOID
WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW.
WHO MAY ENTER: This contest is intended for participation by legal U.S. residents of the United States (including Washington D.C.) 18 and older as of November 10, 2007. Individuals employed either by Home Depot Incentives, Inc. (“Sponsor”), Imre Communications, You Tube, and their respective affiliate companies, subsidiaries, advertising and promotion agencies, and judges (collectively “Contest Parties”) at any time during the Contest Period (defined below), and members of their immediate family or persons living in the same household, are not eligible.
HOW TO ENTER: Complete the electronic entry form and upload a video showcasing a home improvement project as detailed below between November 10, 2007 – December 15, 2007 (“Contest Period”), and no later than 11:59:59 p.m. EST on December 15, 2007 on the
following designated group on YouTube’s website located at: www.youtube.com/group/thdgiftcards (“Website”). Videos submitted prior to or after the Contest Period will be disqualified. For purposes of this Contest, all internet entries, “receipt” of an internet entry occurs when Sponsor’s servers record the entry information resulting from the entrant clicking the “Submit Entry” button. Automated entries (including but not limited to entries submitted using any robot, script, macro, or other automated service) are not permitted and will be disqualified. All entries become the property of Sponsor and will not be returned. All winners must meet the eligibility requirements set forth in these rules in order to qualify for the prize. Limit one entry per person. Sponsor is not responsible for lost, late, misdirected, incomplete or illegible entries. Sponsor is not responsible for any failure of the website during the Contest Period, including any telephone problems or technical malfunction of any computer on-line systems, servers, access providers, computer equipment, software, failure of any e-mail or entry to be received on account of traffic congestion on the internet or at the website, or any combination thereof including any injury or damage to an entrant’s or any other person’s computer related to or resulting from downloading any material related to the Contest, all of which may affect a person’s ability to participate in the Contest. All entries must be submitted according to the YouTube Terms of Use (http://www.youtube.com/t/terms) and these Official 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. By entering this Contest, each entrant affirms, represents and warrants that: i) its entry is an original work of the entrant; (ii) its entry does not defame or invade the rights or privacy of any person, living or deceased, and does not contain any material that would violate or infringe upon the copyrights, patents, trademarks, rights of privacy or publicity, or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity ; (iii) the posting of its entry on the Website will not infringe upon or violate the copyrights, patents, trademarks, rights of privacy or publicity or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (iv) to the extent that its entry contains any third party materials and or depicts the name, likeness or indicia of identity of any person living or deceased, the entrant has secured and can provide, upon Sponsor’s request, all necessary permissions to enable inclusion and use of such materials in its entry and posting of such materials on the Website. By entering this Contest, each entrant grants Sponsor and YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform their entries on the Website in connection with this Contest. Entrants further grant Sponsor a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform their entries in any and all media now known or hereafter developed (including, without limitation, print, broadcast and Internet), for all legitimate business purposes including advertising and promotional activities. Entrants are prohibited from submitting entries that: (i) contain material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless the entrant is the owner of such rights or has permission from the rightful owner to post the material and to grant Sponsor and YouTube all of the license rights granted herein; (ii) publish falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage Sponsor, YouTube or any third party; (iii) contain material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate. Entrants agree that Sponsor shall have the right to immediately remove any entry and disqualify any entrant who has or is suspected of violating these Official Rules or whose entry infringes or potentially infringes upon the intellectual property rights or other rights of any person or entity. JUDGING CRITERIA: There will be a maximum of Twenty-One (21) winners. Winners will be selected by a panel of three (3) judges, selected at Sponsors’ sole discretion, no later than December 17, 2007 from among all eligible entries received based on the following: Relevance to the Gift Card Contest Theme (defined below) 40% Creativity 20% Originality 20% View Content (number of viewers as listed by You Tube) 20% Winners will be notified by mail or phone. Decisions of judges are final. Entrant’s must meet, as determined by Sponsor, the following criteria to be awarded the prize: 1) video must showcase home improvement projects in or around the entrant’s home; 2) video must describe how entrant will use the $25,000 The Home Dept Gift Card if selected as the Grand Prize winner(“Gift Card Contest Theme”); and 3) video should not exceed two (2) minutes in length. The video entry must not have been previously submitted, distributed, aired or have won any other award in any other competition. All entrants will be required to sign an affidavit verifying the originality of the video and compliance with these Contest 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. Further, by accepting the prize, the winner consents to Sponsor’s use of their name, photograph and/or likeness, address, voice, and statements made by or attributed to them, in perpetuity, in any and all media now known or hereafter developed (including, without
limitation, print, broadcast and Internet), for all legitimate business purposes including advertising and promotional activities without additional compensation, unless prohibited by law. By participating in this Contest, entrants agree to release and hold harmless Contest Parties and each of their respective parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, representatives, agents and employees, from any and all liability whatsoever for any injuries, losses or damages of any kind arising from or in connection with, either directly or indirectly, 1) the awarding, acceptance, receipt, possession, use and/or misuse of any prize awarded herein; or 2) participation in the Contest or any prize related activities, including but not limited to traveling to or from any prize related activity. Upon delivery of the prize to the winner, Sponsor will be deemed to have awarded the prize to the winner with winner assuming full responsibility for the prize. If any correspondence of the contest judge or any prize is returned as undeliverable, the corresponding prize will be forfeited and will be awarded to an alternate winner. Should a winner make any false statement(s) in any document referenced above, the winner will be required to promptly return to Sponsor his/her prize. Any unclaimed prizes will be awarded in a random drawing to be held as necessary. In the event there is a dispute of the entrant’s identity, the prize will be awarded to the established email account associated with the entry. 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. PRIZES: One (1) Grand Prize consists of: A $25,000 The Home Depot Gift Card. Twenty (20) First Place Prizes consist of: A $200 The Home Depot Gift Card. Total APR for all prizes $29,000. All properly claimed prizes will be awarded. Only the prizes specified above will be awarded. Prizes are non-transferable, with no cash redemption or equivalent. All federal, state and local income taxes, insurance, licensing, registration and title fees connected to the prize are the sole responsibility of the winners. All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. Sponsor shall only be responsible for awarding the number of prizes as stated in these rules. Sponsor expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for injury or loss to any person or property relating to the delivery and/or subsequent use of prizes awarded. Sponsor makes no representation or warranties concerning the appearance, safety or performance of any prizes awarded. Gift Cards are subject to terms and conditions on the back of each card and as otherwise specified by The Home Depot. Prizes are not transferable or redeemable for cash and no substitutions are allowed, except by Sponsor who reserves the right to substitute a prize of comparable or greater value, at its sole discretion. Winners may use The Home Depot Gift Card toward the purchase of merchandise at any The Home Depot retail store or EXPO Design Center. The Home Depot Gift Card has no implied warranties, is not a credit card or debit card, and is redeemable for merchandise only and will not be redeemed or exchanged for cash, check or credit. It may not be used for payment on any credit or loan account. Lost, stolen or damaged The Home Depot Gift Cards will not be canceled and replaced without the required proof of acceptance by the winner. Additional terms and conditions apply. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS: Information collected from entrants is subject to the Sponsor’s Privacy Policy (http://www.homedepot.com/privacy) and YouTube’s Privacy Policy (http://www.youtube.com/privacy/privacypolicy.html). The data collected will be shared with The Home Depot and You Tube. At the time you are entering the Promotion, we may ask your permission to send you future marketing information from The Home Depot. We want to assure you that The Home Depot is dedicated to protecting your privacy. You can contact us or otherwise communicate your privacy concerns by:
calling us at 1-800-553-3199
faxing us at 1-877-496-9470
e-mailing us at customercare@homedepot.com
accessing your registration information on our Sites
registering or changing your privacy preferences at
www.homedepot.com/privacypreferences
writing us at the address below (please include your e-mail address and phone number with your correspondence along with the information needed to support your request):
The Home Depot, Inc.
Attention: Privacy Official
Customer Care
2455 Paces Ferry Road
Home Depot Holiday Gift Card Contest http://www.contestrules.net/thdgiftcards/
5 of 5 12/19/07 8:40 AM
Atlanta, GA 30339-4024
CHOICE OF LAW: Under no circumstances will entrants be permitted to obtain awards for, and entrants hereby waive all rights to claim, punitive, incidental or consequential damages, or any other damages, including attorneys’ fees, and entrants further waive all rights to have damages multiplied or increased. All issues and questions concerning the construction, validity, interpretation and enforceability of these Official Rules, or the rights and obligations of entrants and Sponsor in connection with this Contest, shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the substantive laws of the State of Georgia, without regard to Georgia conflict of law principles. WINNERS LIST: To obtain a winners list by email, send a request to: willz@imrecommunications.com or via telephone to Will Zweigart, Imre Communications, 410-821-8220. Requests must be received by January 5, 2008.
SPONSOR: The Sponsor of this Contest is Home Depot Incentives, Inc. 2455 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30339.

THE CHRISTMAS "MIRACLE"

Be sure to watch the side-by-side video, comparing the original Home Depot $25,000 contest entry with the "newly edited" version in which Home Depot allowed them to remove FOUR contest rules violations AFTER the contest was over, just to keep them the winner. That and much more as you scroll down.



First of all a HUGE THANK YOU to everyone who is linking this blog or the YouTube version of our "side-by-side" proof video. We've had hundreds and hundreds of people checking out this issue. Please keep up the effort! Has anyone tried a letter-to-the-editor in their local paper yet? Let me know what works!

What happened on Christmas Day? Well, in yet another stage of "damage control", Home Depot/IMRE Communications finally deleted this comment from their YouTube contest message board, regarding another video to which they actually applied their rules (gasp!).



On December 24th, it was there... Christmas Day, gone (along with many other user comments). What do you suppose was going on? Maybe a corporate inquiry on that day to see what kind of absolute mess Home Depot/IMRE has made of this? Scrub the "really bad stuff"? Don't worry, we have copies of everything. The other Christmas "Miracle"? Home Depot decided to close down their "feedback" message boards forever, attempting to shutter the discussion without ever addressing the immense outrage that swelled into the threads. "Nothing to see here, please move along". Happy Holidays from Home Depot, indeed.


Be sure to read the following post and take action!

THE PROOF! SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON

Note: Please scroll down to the bottom to keep abreast of the incredibly controversial Home Depot $25,000 Gift Card contest meltdown. It was near-revolt at the Home Depot YouTube message board when they allowed the winning video to re-edit their video after the contest was over, just to meet contest rules (even though they disqualified others). The bottom-most post will fill you in on most of the details.

I have been able to sync up a saved original video submitted by the Longs (that they have now deleted from YouTube) with the newly re-edited version. This is the same video Home Depot declared the winner in their $25,000 contest, then allowed to be re-edited after the contest was over. In this video, we compare the two side-by-side, so you can see for yourself just what Home Depot allowed the Long family to change, just to keep them in the winner's circle, and despite the fact that their video should have been disqualified. (You can see the full, unedited version of the new video here)

The good news is, upon further analyzation, there are four, not five, copyright violations in the original video. I stand corrected on that one. The bad news is, I can find NOWHERE in the contest rules that indicate what Home Depot did was legal. It is the sole responsibility of the contest entrant to ensure they don't violate the rules. It is not Home Depot's responsibility. Am I wrong?



Take a look, and when you've seen enough, click the profile button to the left to contact some of the people responsible for this contest. Or, contact your local media stations and see if they will follow up on this story. Make sure you read all the posts below as well. Send me a comment to tell me what you think.

TODAY'S CHALLENGE: Link as many people as you can to this website or the YouTube version of the video below. Raise awareness! It all starts there!

THEIR FIRST YOUTUBE "MELTDOWN"

Allowing a video to re-edit AFTER the contest, just to meet contest rules? Is that what IMRE Communications, the company hired to handle the contest, thinks is appropriate? Apparently this is their first time running anything like this YouTube contest. Can you tell? During the time the $25,000 "meltdown" contest was being run there was a PRWeek article. Manish Shrivastava, who is president of Home Depot Incentives and one of the people conducting this contest, had some things to say:

"[Home Depot] usually targets different mediums for campaigns, but felt it was time to throw its hat into the new-media ring in a significant way." He said the holiday season and this idea presented the perfect opportunity ... "It's a good way for us to learn and see what works for us in this space and optimize it from there".

If what has been witnessed is any indication, they would seem they have a lot of work to do in ensuring a legally-conducted contest. If you have any questions for them, or want to let them know what you think of the job they did, contact Will Zweigart at IMRE Communications (willz@imrecommunications.com, 410-821-8220).

I have received several supportive comments in the comments section here, but also several "naysayer" posts. But in every "naysayer" case they chose to address something, ANYTHING besides the substance of the alleged contest law violation. So, rather than endure more comments that have no real value other than to fein "concern", I offer a simple guideline for posting here. If you think that I am wrong about ANY information posted here, then just write a new comment saying something like:

"Hey, this is 'journalist' Patti Bond, and those articles that say that I'm going to work for Home Depot eight days after writing a glowing article about the Home Depot $25,000 contest aren't true, because ..."

- or even -

"This is Home Depot headquarters, and the reason we feel we were responsible for helping the Longs re-edit their video to comply with our contest is based on the Georgia legal statute XX-1234 that says, contrary to our contest rules, the entrants themselves are in NO WAY responsible for their own content. If we really like a video, we are legally obligated to help them win."

That last one I would LOVE to see come to reality. I would sleep better at night...

HD/LONGS: "ONE" CHANGE, REALITY "MANY"

In case you're just getting up to speed, there is a major controversy over the Home Depot $25,000 Gift Card contest. Chronologically, posts start at the bottom and go up, so scroll down to the bottom to get all the crazy details.

This post will address the scenes that were allowed to be modified AFTER the contest was over, just so Home Depot could retain them as winner, in apparent violation of their own contest rules. Home Depot and the Long family have now posted that the re-submitted video changed "one brief shot", but we know that is simply not true.

Below you will see messages from both Home Depot and the Long family that say an image was changed, as in singular... one. But all that aside, where in the contest rules does it say that it is Home Depot's responsibility to inform the entrant as to their eligibility? In the contest rules, it places sole responsibility on the entrant. So, allowing the Long family to modify their video and then resubmit AFTER the contest was over seems completely in violation of Home Depot's own contest rules. Home Depot's excuse that they gave everyone that "opportunity" seems besides the point, and more like a smokescreen than a legal justification. What do you think?

(UPDATE: To be fair, this may be a matter of parsing words. Upon reviewing the message threads preceding the re-edited video, the main objection by YouTube posters was the mention of "The Right Stuff" movie poster, which may have led to the "image" versus "images". It was a a seemingly obvious violation, so it was a natural focus for objection. It was only after the re-edited video was submitted that it became apparent the extent of the changes. These seem a little bit "word-smithy", but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt. It still doesn't alter the fact that Home Depot claims it was their responsibility to inform the winners AFTER the deadline that they needed to make some changes, a point which seems contradictory to anything I can find in the official contest rules.)

THE $0 CONTEST - PROVE THIS BLOG WRONG

At least one person has come to this blog to try and rustle feathers and otherwise intimidate the investigation into this contest "melt-down". They choose to post anonymously, and have offered little beyond fact-free threats to this blog. I want someone to prove me wrong on all this, not just come here to complain. If anyone is serious enough to discuss these potentially serious violations, please continue reading.

My challenge to them (and to anyone else) is rather than come here and launch verbal attacks for the sheer audacity to challenge Home Depot's opinion (gasp!), try posting reasons why you think there were no rules violations:

• Where in the contest rules does it say it is appropriate for Home Depot to change multiple content issues that would disqualify the video, AFTER the contest is over? Home Depot says it's what they offered to everyone. But I have yet to see any verifiable evidence that ANYONE was approached mid-contest and told what to change in their video to avoid being disqualified.".
• Will Home Depot go on the record telling us how many people they actually notified and gave instructions on how to fix their violating video?
• MOST IMPORTANTLY: Where in the contest rules does it say that it is Home Depot's responsibility to inform contestants whether or not they are violating the rules? In the contest rules, they do everything possible to lay responsibility on the person entering the contest, not Home Depot. If you were lucky enough to be contacted by Home Depot to fix something (which I highly doubt happened), it would still be a "favor" by Home Depot, not a right given to all entrants via the contest rules. Am I wrong?
• Why did Home Depot disqualify the Bork video from New York for rules violation, but not this video?Where in the contest rules does it say that you can re-submit a video after the December 15th deadline? Show me. Prove me wrong.
• Why did Home Depot (and the Long family) say they reposted a video that addressed the "shot" in question. Note, they say it singularly, as in ONE correction. They don't say "the five or more shots that violated rules". (UPDATE: Please read the addendum to the post above for some clarification here)
  
• Where in the contest rules does it state that after the contest is over, you can fix your video to remove copyright violations, but we'll still use the view count from your previously disqualified video. After all, that's 20% of the vote, according to them.
• Will Home Depot or you explain why a message from someone who said they were the marketing director for Home Depot went on their message board and insulted one of the contest entrants, then deleted his own message, then posted again admitting that he deleted it?
• Why is it alright for Home Depot to begin deleting messages on their board that contradict their opinion on the contest, or that contain information they deem irreconcilable?
• Will Home Depot or you explain why Patti Bond gave such a sunshine review of the $25,000 contest in the publication, then a week later is coincidentally working for Home Depot?

This isn't some mom-and-pop contest. This $25,000+ award puts it in a different category than your local grocery-store giveaway. Home Depot is legally obligated (as they have said themselves) to post the contest rules, and follow them to the letter, without modification. So, I say to all of you... if you want to be upset, be constructive and prove to me that any of these accusations are unfounded. I would be most grateful to you. Until then, this contest seems horribly executed and possibly legally unfounded. It began with the promise of collective intellectual challenges and excitement, and ended with a stink-bomb of people scratching their heads saying "what is going on here?". What say you?