Contest News | Video Contest News - Featuring News about Video Contests!

New changes to Youtube make it HARDER to spot fake views

Posted by Dan L. on July 17th, 2013

I used to absolutely love youtube. It was such a fun, simple, efficient, user-friendly website. But Google just couldn’t leave well enough alone and bit by bit they’ve turned the site into a cluttered, spam-filled clusterf*ck. It seems like youtube only exists so that Google can force people sign up for Google + pages that no one will actually use. Have you looked at a youtube channel page lately? The new designs are ugly, boring and confusing. I just don’t understand what that company is doing to that site. It seems like they take one step forward and then they take two steps back. Case in Point: Last year Google “confiscated” billions of fake views that big name media companies had purchased so that their videos and channels would seem more popular. I thought this was a great move since fake views, likes and comments have really ruined Youtube’s social credibility. But for some reason, Google just made some changes that will make it harder for users to spot fake youtube views.

In 2009, Youtube added “insight data” options to every video on the site. Unless you turned off the “statistics” option, viewers could see lots of information about where your views came from. Here’s a screen shot of what that used to look like.

-

Those stats came from a video that was created by a spammer who was trying to get people to sign up for some get-rich-quick scheme. Most of the views on his video were almost certainly purchased. If you buy phony youtube views, you’re not actually getting real “views.” Instead your paying for hits on your video that have been disguised as views. After Youtube started the Insight program, view-sellers had to start covering their tracks by routing those hits through plausible referral sites like facebook and Twitter. It seems that the easiest way to cover the source of fake views is to make it seem like the views came from a “mobile device.” According to these stats, more than 1.5 million people watched this spammer’s video from a mobile device. A ridiculously high number of views from a mobile device was a huge red flag and it almost always meant that all of those “mobile device” views were fake. As I said, you could turn these public stats off but if you did, that would also be a red flag since it meant you had something to hide.

So as I explained in my post, How to Spot Fake Youtube Views, it was sort of easy to tell which members were buying phony views. But for reasons that defy explanation, Google has removed some of the Insight Data options. The public no longer gets to see where a video’s views came from. Scroll up and look at that screen shot I posted. All that stuff about Views from a Mobile Device and Views from Facebook are gone.

The loss of this data sucks but it’s not all bad news. Google did enhance one aspect of the Insight reports. Users can now see WHEN a video got its views. Check this out:

-

That’s the Statistics Data for a video that was recently entered into Arpin Van Line’s “Movin’ With Arpin” video contest. The winner of that contest was determined by youtube views and likes. They guy who submitted this particular entry has (allegedly) won a small fortune by cheating in other online video contests. If you look at the “Daily” data for that video you can plainly see that it got a huge avalanche of views out of no where. Then after a second bump, the video’s view count totally flat-lined. That (probably) means this guy bought a bunch of fake views and likes and the spike and the bump represent the days his orders were filled.

Oh but you wanna hear something funny? This guy still lost even though he (allegedly) cheated his ass off! Another contestant (seems to have) bought twice as many “likes” and wound up winning. So there’s a lesson to be learned here. NEVER ENTER A VIDEO CONTEST IF YOUTUBE LIKES OR VIEWS HELP DETERMINE THE WINNERS. You can buy thousands of fake views and likes on sites like Fiverr for just a few bucks and it is simply impossible for a sponsor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a contestant’s views or likes are fake. So just do yourself a favor and stay out of those contests.

-

GUEST POST: How to run a successful video contest

Posted by Dan L. on July 15th, 2013

Dan’s Note: Today we’re featuring a guest post from a reader named Mike Gabel. Mike started entering video contests recently and he’s already got some nice wins under his belt. I don’t want to spoil his post with a big preamble so without further ado, here’s Mike….

This is my first guest post for VCN so Dan asked me to give you a bit of my background. It all started when I and won big in the first video contest I ever entered: Buitoni’s “Girls Love Guys Who Can Cook” competition. I’ve been HOOKED ever since. I’m a one-man operation (forgive my horrible acting) and I rely heavily on my wife and five (yes, five) young daughters to be my actresses, crew and film critics. I can just imagine that some of my daughters’ earliest memories will be holding a fill light as their to shoot a video. I’m not looking for a breakout film career- I’m just happy to have a creative outlet and win a contest every now and then. You can see a bit more of my work . Overall, I love the whole video contest realm but, like many of you,have been frustrated by contests that were mismanaged or badly run. I’ve found a lot of online articles which address the marketing angle of video contest (return on investment, driving word of mouth, etc) but none really explain the basics of holding one. So I decided to explain what an average contestant wants to see in a video contest. Hopefully some future contest organizer may see this and be inspired to run a better, fairer promotion.

First, define why you want to hold a video contest. This can roughly be split into three reasons:

1. Desire a Quality Video. Your company may want to hold a video contest because you want filmmakers to generate videos that you will eventually use on your for some end use (Facebook/YouTube/website content, TV commercial, etc.). Crowdsourcing is a great alternative to traditional ad agencies since it save moneys and generate new ideas. There are a slew of great companies to host your contest (Tongal, Mofilm, Poptent to name a few) that generate extremely professional work. Poke around their websites and see what you like. Their services aren’t necessarily cheap (think tens of thousands) but they have great resources, loyal contributors and will hold your hand through the whole process. A cheaper alternative is to host your own. It can be as simple as to asking your fans to upload their entries on YouTube and then you embed their videos on your contest webpage.

2. Create Buzz. Here you hold a contest so that the contest itself gets people excited about your product or service. You want a large number of people to enter, post, share, forward, tweet, retweet and just plain talk about your contest. These contests are often linked to social media sites and more often than not have a public vote as part of the contest. If you want to outsource the work, companies like Votigo can run these types of promotions for you.

3. Merit contest. Your purpose here is to find the most talented, biggest fan, greatest idea, most deserving and any other superlative you can name. (Example: whoever can get the most people to dance to our commercial’s theme song wins a year supply of our product!) These contests tend to be less video-centric (although a good quality produced video always helps) and more people/ idea- centric.

Next you’ll want to define your contest parameters. These include:

JUDGING TYPE:

This generally falls into three categories:

Judged. A judge or judging panel selects the winner(s). This is the preferred method for most regular entrants as they want to exhibit their ideas and skills and ultimately have their work declared to be “the best.” This also give you, the sponsor, the ability to choose what video you want.

Public Vote. Public Vote contest are the equivalent to choosing the homecoming queen in high school. It’s not about the best candidate but who has the most friends. Unless you publicize your contest like crazy (think American Idol scale) you will never truly have the general public choosing the winner. The quality of the videos are usually pretty awful because the entrant’s odds of winning don’t increase by producing a quality video. So, plain and simple they’re a bad idea. I could rant for a while but the UK site Super Lucky has already done a nice job summing up why public voting contests are a bad idea.

Mixed Judging. This comes in three forms: 1. Judges narrow down the finalists and public vote decides the winners. 2. A public vote narrows down the field then judges choose the winners. 3. A public vote and judging contribute to the selection of the winner. You can guess the pluses and minuses of each of these forms. Let me point out that I put the three options in increasing order of bringing traffic to your site. So option 3 (my personal preference of mixed judging) keeps all entrants engaged and promoting their entry for the whole competition. I’ll refer back to Super Lucky blog who make some excellent points in their post, making public vote contest better.

JUDGING CRITERIA:

You need to tell your entrants what type of videos you want. For example, maybe you want a high quality video that’s sentimental, appeals to 30-somethings and showcases your product. Well tell them exactly that and which of those points are most important to you by assigning percentage values to each point. Define a clear judging criteria and stick with it. If you’re asking for humorous entries and you end up choosing emotional ones that’s not good or fair. To determine the winner the simplest (and fairest) method may be to create a ballot indicating your judging criteria (for example 35% humor, 30% adhesion to concept, 20% production quality, 15% use of unicorns) and then rate each of these 1 to 10 by as many relevant people in your organization as possible. If you just have people in your organization choose the video they like the most then there is no reason to define a judging criteria.

PRIZE AMOUNT:

The number of entries you will receive is proportional to the prize amount. Bigger prize = more entries. So what’s the magic number? Generally speaking prizes from $5K to 15K get in the ballpark of 40 -100 entries. $1,000- $2,500 normally get 20-30 entries. Less than that and your results vary. I’ve been one of only two entrants for a contest of $250. Do these numbers seem low to you? Unfortunately, this is reality and I think many sponsors realize this too late.

What should your prize be? Cash is king. But Apple products also fair well. Filmmakers LOVE video equipment, trips are good too. Just be aware of specialized prize packages as they are not always popular. Also, offering multiples prizes, like cash prizes for 1st thru 10th place, increase the contest appeal . For example, a contest offering only one $10K prize may deter entrants with its 1 in say 60 chance. But if there are 10 prizes the odds instantly go to 1 in 5.

Also keep in mind that the number of entries is also highly dependent on how well you promote your contest. There was a recent contest that offered a measly $300 prize but was promoted in conjunction with a widely popular TV show. It managed to get 30+ entries (although, none of them were all that great). So what they lacked in prize amount they had to compensate with advertising dollars.

It’s almost too obvious to use Doritos Crash the Bowl contest as a model contest but you can’t scoff at the ~3,000 entries they receive. With potentially millions in prizes and loads of promotion it is the holy grail of video contests. But that kind of success comes at a high price. Doritos spends millions of dollars promoting The Crash so those low-budget commercials actually cost the company a lot of money.

LENGTH OF CONTEST?

How long should you have you contest open for entries? My personal take is that you treat it like a wedding invite. Too little notice (less than a month) and people already have commitments and not enough time to put together all the pieces. Too far out (6 months to a year) and it loses its hype. M y recommendation is 2-3 months. Actual filming for many entrants may not start until a few weeks out from the deadline but a lot of notice gives entrants time to gets all their ducks in a row. I recommend that you have the contest end on a Sunday at midnight Pacific time- this gives people the weekend to polish their videos. Should you extend the deadline? You’re usually contemplating this because of the pitiful number of entries you’ve received (which is likely a result of low prize amount, not enough promotion, or having too niche of a concept). If you’ve done your due diligence in these areas then hold tight- a majority (up to 80% I would wager) of the entries are submitted in the last two days of the contest. Additionally, you will only add a meager number of new entries if you extend your deadline shortly before or even after (super annoying) your original deadline. So, if you extend, do it early.

OFFICIAL RULES AND LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO:

I won’t get into the nitty gritty about how to write your official rules but my recommendations are to look at other contests’ rules and modify theirs according to your needs. If you have a legal department make sure they sign off on them. Another downside of public vote contests in that you need to cover more of what is or is not allowed, likevote farming.

Last step, promote your contest:

Step one, make a contest webpage and make it look polished and official- if your website looks sketchy I’m not entering and I’m guessing others aren’t either. Step two: send the info to OnlineVideoContest.com so they can post it. Final step: do you social media magic, reach out through email, make a flyer if you have a retail outlet, tell your friends and neighbors to enter (unless it’s prohibited in your rules) and have your coworkers tell their friends and neighbors, reach out to filmmakers- get creative.

FINAL WORDS OF WISDOM:

Have a contact email: A dedicated email or forum is critical because questions will arise. If entrants have no way to contact you they will feel isolated and frustrated and they might produce videos that are not what you are looking for.

Make the video time limit reasonable: This is more for your sanity because you’ll be pulling out your hair if you have to review a slew of 5 minute videos. Only put longer time limits (say 3 min plus) if it is an absolute necessity. The challenge that you pose to the entrants is to tell a story in a brief period. 1-2 min is my personal sweet spot.

Keep the contest page updated: If something changes (rules, deadline extension, general update) change it on the contest page and make it apparent. Don’t just posts it on Facebook because entrants are not always looking there.

Make good on your word: So your contest was a flop and you only received a handful of entries. Now you’re contemplating whether to pay out the prizes. Just do it! Be as loyal to the entrants as they were loyal to your contest.

Announce the winner: Some contests never actually post the video that won their contest. Think of how crummy it would be if they cut out the second half of the Miss America Pageant or the season finale of American Idol. It’s always nice to know who won so even if the winning video isn’t great (if it’s not, that probably means you let voters pick the winner) you need to post it.

-

Tongal gets into the music video business

Posted by Dan L. on June 15th, 2013

-

2013 has been a very good year for Tongal. The site received $15 Million dollars in funding in January and since then the site has been landing one gigantic client after another. It seems like every few weeks they launch a new $100,000+ commercial contest. Just yesterday I read an announcement for a new $150,000 Tongal “Super Project” that’s sponsored by Gillette. Two years ago that would have been a huge piece of news. But now it’s just another big contest that casually gets revealed on the company’s Facebook page.

On Friday the LA Times reported that Tongal is going to try and capitalize on their new found momentum and branch out into the world of music videos. From the Times:

Tongal, a Southern California start-up that has crowd-sourced video ads for big brands such as Pringles and McDonald’s, is expanding into music.

The Santa Monica-based firm has made a name for itself linking writers, directors and actors with brands to create video ads in exchange for cash prizes. The sponsoring brand chooses the best entries from the users’ submissions.

Tongal will now use its platform to field ideas and production for music videos as online streaming becomes a key way that people consume content, the company said Thursday.

Why would a band use Tongal to produce their next music video? Here’s the answer:

Crowd-sourcing music videos could also save money for the labels, and increase the number of videos they can make, Wolfe said. While $250,000 music videos were once the norm, record companies have pulled back.

At the same time, the demand for videos has increased as fans desire more content to watch on the Web through YouTube and Vevo.

“All the recent research clearly shows YouTube as being the No. 1 place where people consume music,” said Wolfe. “Labels used to spend a quarter-million to make a video that would get one spin a day. The way we do it, we make a video for every track on an album.”

There’s already a video contest site named Genero that’s almost exclusively dedicated to running music video-themed contests. But to be frank, I am not a fan of that site. The problem with Genero is that the prizes are just way too low. Creating an interesting and entertaining 3-minute music video takes a hell of a lot of work. And the job becomes much more difficult if you can’t film the featured artists. If you cant use footage of the band, you’re pretty much making a 3 to 5 minute short film set to music. Gereno usually offers one or two prizes ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 for each contest. So there isn’t a lot of incentive for people to do really great work. But I’m thinking Tongal will probably do this right. If they start offering $50,000+ in prizes per assignment they’re going to be able to lure in some really talented filmmakers.

-

Vidopp.com is up for sale

Posted by Dan L. on June 5th, 2013

Vidopp.com was launched in January of 2007 which means it might just be the oldest video contest site on the web. (Correction: It’s not. Turns out OnlineVideoContests.com beat them by two months) To be totally honest, I never really check Vidopp because the layout is a hot mess. They list a ton of new contests over there but the site really needs some TLC. If you’re a hardcore video contest nut and if you have the talent and the time you may want to consider buying Videopp. The site is up for sale and it sounds like it actually generates a few hundred dollars in profit every month. The site’s being auctioned off on Flippa and the bidding is only at $330. The “buy it now” price is $4,685 but I don’t think the bidding will get that high. Like I said, the site needs a lot of work. The layout is totally all over the place. Here’s a screenshot:

-

Now that I think about it, I guess someone who’s good with wordpress could probably get the site looking clean and organized in a day or so. I’m pretty handy with wordpress and I am a giant video contest nut. A crazy little voice inside of my head is telling me I should place a bid. I’m making a nice steady stream of cash from VCN and if I double the number of websites I own, I’d double my profit! But I barely have time to keep this site running so I’d probably lose my mind if I took over Videopp. Although, it does sound pretty low maintenance. There’s a form on the site where contest sponsors can submit their new contests. So that means they do most of the work. Videopp is also one of the top search results for “video contests” so there would always be traffic coming in. According to the Flippa auction, the site gets an average of 2,482 visitors a month. Those kind of numbers probably mean that Videopp is the number 3 busiest video contest site on the web. I assume that OnlineVideoContests.com is number one and if it is, that means that VCN is probably number 2. Not for nothin’ but right now is our slowest time of year and the site’s been getting 6,500 – 7,500 unique hits a month. And when Crash the Super Bowl season comes around, boy howdy do we see the traffic. Last January this site saw 33,000 unique visitors. What does any of this have to do with Videopp? Eh, nothing really. I just wanted to brag. Anyway, if you want to check out the Videopp auction and maybe put in a bid, head here.

-

Help pick Wild Kingdom’s new Wild Guide

Posted by Dan L. on May 16th, 2013

Mutual of Omaha is currently running a contest to find a “Wild Guide” to host a new web version of Wild Kingdom A friend of VCN named Tim O. managed to make the finals and his entry is so good that I had to share it. I’ve seen a lot of cool “hire me” type of video contest entries before but this one might just take the cake. This dude is really freaking qualified for this gig. If Tim wins he’ll get $10,000 plus the hosting job so I’m guessing they’ll send him all over the world. A percentage of his score is based on votes so if you watch his video, be sure to click the orange vote button. There’s no registration necessary which means it literally takes one second to vote.

Click to view

I can’t link to Tim’s video directly but there are only 12 finalists. So just click this link and scroll through the gallery until you see his entry.

-

What is Vote Farming?

Posted by Dan L. on May 13th, 2013

-

Last week I posted a story about a man who lost a $100,000 contest prize after he was disqualified for “vote farming.” The ex-winner was a lawyer and he was considering a lawsuit because he felt the contest’s official rules were ambiguous and vague. He did get the most votes but it seems he didn’t get the right kind of votes. Here’s what the rules actually said:

“offering prizes or other inducements to members of the public, vote farming, or any other activity that artificially inflates such finalists votes as determined by sponsor in its sole discretion.”

While I was writing my story about the disqualified lawyer I tried to look up the definition of “vote farming” but I apparently there isn’t one. Seriously. Wikipedia, the Urban Dictionary and 10 pages of google results turned up nothing. It seems to be a brand new term that has just started to appear in online contest rules. Since I’m pretty familiar with the concept behind Vote Farming I thought I’d offer a definition of my own:

Vote Farming: The practice of earning votes in an online contest by trading votes with friends or strangers who are competing in other online contests.

How Vote Farming Works: One contestant will post voting instructions and a link to their entry on a “Vote Exchange” website, Facebook page or forum. A second contestant will vote for that entry. They will then post a screen shot or a vote number as proof that they voted. They will also post their own contest link. The original poster will “Return the Favor” (RTF) and vote for the other person’s entry. After the swap is complete, each contestant has gained one vote in their respective contest and they have each cast one vote for someone else. The more votes a person casts, the more votes they gain.

Here’s an example of a “Vote Request” looks like:

-

I’ve tried Vote Swapping myself and I’ve found it to be a very successful (but time consuming) tactic. There’s a whole online community of people who win lots of contests thanks to Vote Swapping. A hardcore Vote Swapper will spend hours and hours and hours voting for other people’s entries and they can earn hundreds of votes a week. This practice has presumably been dubbed “Vote Farming” because it’s very similar to a tactic known as “Gold Farming.” Gold Farmers are people who repetitively play Massive Multi-Player Online Role Playing games (like World of Warcraft) just to collect gold or weapons that they can sell to other players for real money. Selling in-game items for real cash is usually against the rules. A player can gold farm for themselves but the practice violates the spirit of the game. And the same thing goes for Vote Farming. When a contestant gains a ton of votes thanks to vote swapping, they aren’t really doing anything unethical. All of their votes are coming from real people so it’s hard to argue that a Vote Farmer is a cheater. But trading votes goes against the spirit of an online contest. The technique is kind of like a cheating loophole. Yes, all the votes are real but they’re junk votes. Companies use online voting in their contests because they want to generate more traffic or facebook likes. But a vote from a Vote Swapper is junk traffic. The Swapper doesn’t pay attention to the content. They just vote as fast as they can and then move on.

And that’s why a lot of sponsors are now banning Vote Farming. They can get away with calling it cheating because the contestant is technically offering an “inducement” to get a stranger to vote for their entry. If you’re in an online contest and you’re thinking of trying Vote Swapping be sure to READ THE RULES before you start. If the rules say that you can’t trade votes, don’t do it. I’ve heard several stories about contestants who were disqualified because they got caught posting their entry in a Vote Swapping forum. So if you’re going to swap, swap with caution.

-

Vote Swapping video contest winner gets disqualified and loses $100,000 prize

Posted by Dan L. on May 5th, 2013

On August 27th, 2012, a lawyer from Georgia named Theodore Scott got some very good news; he was the $100,000 grand prize winner in Gold Peak Tea’s “Take the Year Off Contest.” Scott entered the competition last summer and when he made it to the second round he had to create a video explaining why he deserved a year off from work and a hundred thousand dollars. Members of the public voted on the finalists’ videos and Scott wound up getting the most votes. Here’s his submission. I can’t embed it so click the screenshot to watch it on AOL.com:

Click to view

Scott and his family were elated but the celebrating didn’t last long. Two days after he was contacted by the sponsor (and before the results were finalized or officially announced) a rep from Gold Peak Tea notified Scott that he was being disqualified because he tried to “inappropriately induce members of the public to vote for his submission, a violation of Official Contest Rules.” Gold Peak Tea has taken down the official rules for the “Take the Year Off” contest but the New York Times posted the section that cost Scott the grand prize:

In an e-mail to Mr. Scott, Sarah Tabb, an associate brand manager for Gold Peak Tea, cited Section 6B of the contest rules which states that finalists were prohibited from obtaining votes by “offering prizes or other inducements to members of the public, vote farming, or any other activity that artificially inflates such finalists votes as determined by sponsor in its sole discretion.”

Gold Peak Tea (in their sole discretion) decided that Scott had violated the rules because he posted a link to his entry on About.com’s online “Vote Request” forum. These types of forums exist so that contest participants can swap votes with strangers who also need votes in other contests. This is a great way to get tons of real votes from real people. But there are two big downsides to swapping votes: First off, the more votes you cast, the more votes you earn. So you will have to spend hours and hours voting for other people’s stuff. But 20 or 40 hours of your time is a small price to pay for a big cash prize. The other downside is a little more serious; a lot of contest sponsors have caught on to “vote farming” and they are including stipulations in their rules that ban the practice. Companies like Gold Peak Tea use online voting in their contests because they want to generate more traffic or facebook likes. But a vote from a Vote Swapper is junk traffic. The Swapper doesn’t pay attention to the content. They just vote as fast as they can and then move on. Most of the About.com voters probably didn’t even watch Scott’s video and a lot of them probably unliked Gold Peak Tea’s facebook page as soon as the contest was over.

As you can imagine, Mr. Scott isn’t too happy about this situation. He feels that he was unjustly disqualified. Here’s what he said to his local paper back in October:

“They thought it was an inducement to members of the public. I saw nothing I did was an inducement,” Scott said. “This was my fellow forum members and forum friends, and friends help each other and friends support each other in causes. Members are not required to vote for each other.”

Scott was also upset because he felt Gold Peak Tea’s rules about Vote Swapping were vague. This is from his team’s Twitter account:

FYI: Coca-Cola Owns Gold Peak Tea

As of last October, Scott was planning on fighting Gold Peak Tea’s decision. He was considering a lawsuit and he and his supporters had managed to get his story a huge amount of media attention. They also started that twitter account () and an online petition. And like all sore losers, they started posting angry messages all over Gold Peak Tea’s facebook page that said they’d never buy the product again.

Yeah that’s right, I said it…I think this dude is a sore loser. His arguments are total B.S. First of all, the guy is a LAWYER. It takes a lot of nerve for a lawyer to say that a contest’s official rules were “ambiguous.” I don’t think they could be any clearer. The rules stated in plain English that contestants couldn’t offer “inducements” to people to get them to vote. Furthermore, the rules specifically ban the practice of “Vote Farming.” I actually managed to find Scott’s About.com forum post. Let’s take a look at it:

For the record, Scott did NOT offer that Live Nation prize. That was a part of the contest.

Scott didn’t specifically say “I’ll vote for you if you vote for me” but his intentions seem clear. His forum post was pretty popular and you can read through it here. There are 26 pages of replies. If you dig through the comments, you will see that Scott posted dozens of messages like this:

-

That right there is what “vote farming” looks like. A member named “Jennyandenzo” posted a message saying that she voted for Scott and Scott wrote back to confirm that he returned the favor. The only reason “Jennyandenzo” voted in the Gold Peak Tea contest is because she knew she’d get something in return. To go back to Scott’s quote to his local paper, he said “This was my fellow forum members and forum friends, and friends help each other and friends support each other in causes.“ But the people on these forum aren’t friends. Usually they only interact on the vote swapping sites. When I read Scott’s quote I figured he was probably a long-time Vote Swapper who knew a lot of people in the community (yes, there’s a vote swapping community and it’s huge.) But according to Scott’s About.com profile, he signed up for the forum around the time that he made the finals in the Gold Peak Tea contest. So all of his “friends” on the forum were almost certainly complete strangers:

-

Eventually Gold Peak Tea declared that another contestant named Michael Simpson was the official winner and that he would receive the grand prize. Scott seems to feel that Simpson’s entry also violated the rules because it included copyrighted material. The winning video, as well as the official rules are no where to be found so I can’t really comment on that allegation. But Scott and his supporters certainly commented on Simpson’s win. Here’s just a small taste of how they reacted when Gold Peak Tea declared Simpson as the winner.

-

More than one of Scott’s friends theorized that Gold Peak Tea disqualified Scott because he was black. There’s no way that any reasonable person could believe that Gold Peak Tea would offer Scott the prize and then decide 2 days later they should give it to another guy just because he was white. But if you post a few comments like this on a brand’s facebook page, you might cause the right person to freak out:

-

Apparently Gold Peak Tea got a lot of comments that were much worse but the admin deleted them since they were obscene or otherwise inappropriate. To their credit, Gold Peak Tea didn’t censor the folks who posted complaints that didn’t include threats or profanity.

I completely understand why Mr. Scott was so upset about what happened to him. It must have been devastating to lose that $100,000 after two days of celebrating. The company that ran the contest, ePrize really should have verified that Scott had followed the rules before they contacted him. And if the winning video did violate the contest rules by including copyrighted material then that video absolutely should have been disqualified too. But in the end, the contest sponsor is always right. Some contest rules are stupid or pointless or arbitrary but it’s the contestant’s obligation to read and understand and follow all the rules. And if you get caught breaking those rules you have to accept the consequences like a man. Any lawyer will tell you (well, almost any lawyer) that the official rules of a contest are like the terms of a contract. The sponsor offers to do “A” if the contestant does “B,” “C,” and “D.” The rules of this particular contest even gave the sponsor the authority to disqualify someone “at their discretion.” If Scott didn’t like that fact then he shouldn’t have entered the contest in the first place. Or maybe he just didn’t bother to read the fine print. That seems pretty unlikely since Scott is an attorney. I think it’s more likely that he probably thought he could get away with the vote swapping if he chose his words carefully and never specifically said that he’d vote for anyone who voted for him.

Scott and his supporters were really pushing this story hard last fall but it seems like all of their activity stopped about two weeks after the New York Times story was published. These folks seemed very determined so I doubt they’d suddenly just drop the whole thing. Scott owns a law firm with his brother so filing a lawsuit would be cheap and easy for them. I’m guessing Coca-Cola’s legal department realized this guy wasn’t going to go away and so they offered him a settlement. I hope they didn’t though because it seems obvious to me that this guy lost fair and square.

-

Bye, Bye Beardy!

Posted by Dan L. on May 1st, 2013

If you’re a regular reader of VCN you’ve probably noticed that the site looks a little different today. After 3 1/2 years of loyal service, our faithful cartoon mascot “Beardy” has retired. He was getting up there in years so I sent him to a farm where he can run and jump and play and grow his beard as long as he wants. Only Beardy the mascot is retiring. The guy who runs this blog under the name “Beardy” (A.K.A. me A.K.A. Dan) isn’t going anywhere. I probably should have put the beard-man out to pasture a long time ago but I just couldn’t think of anything I could use to replace him. Then a few days ago I was filming myself with my DSLR and as I was staring into the lens I realized an aperture symbol might make a nice, generic, un-bearded logo.

Good night, sweet prince.

So Beardy is ~~dead~~ on a farm now and I feel like VCN is a lot more professional looking. I was never very attached to him and I’m glad that I finally took the time to create a new banner. Let’s face it, Beardy was kind of a frumpy looking sadsack. It also bugged me that he was holding up some kind of Hi-8 video camera from 1998. The funny thing is, he was just supposed to be a temporary place-holder mascot. I started this site on a whim in the fall of 2009 and that was the first semi-relevant iStockphoto image that I came across. Originally VCN was supposed to be an anonymous blog and I never thought I’d actually want to share my real name here. So when it came time to pick a new name I just named myself after the mascot guy. I wound up ditching the “anonymous blog” idea pretty quickly but for some reason I kept the nickname. But from now on I’ll be blogging under my own name, Dan L. Actually, if you read my old posts it already looks like I’ve been posting as “Dan L” this whole time. I just changed my wordpress profile and I guess it changed my name in every VCN post I’ve ever written. Right now I’m in the process of de-beardy-fying all the other facets of my VCN persona. I even figured out how to change my twitter handle. Here’s the link in case you’d like to be the very first VCN reader to follow the blogger formerly known as Beardy:

-