I AM dismayed by OCBC's judging of its recently concluded Yes! Card Challenge.
In order to promote the new debit card, an online contest was launched, inviting people to make a video clip showing what they would do with $8,000 in 24 hours.
The winners would get to do precisely this with their new Yes! cards. Participants were encouraged to get their 'creative juices flowing', while ensuring that their videos complied with OCBC's terms and conditions.
I was shocked that one selected winner featured copyright-protected footage from three sources for more than half of his video.
Apart from lacking creativity, doesn't this violate the contest rules?
When the matter was raised, OCBC settled on two videos - surprisingly made by the organisers themselves. After interviewing willing people on the streets, the organisers edited and uploaded these video clips on their official Yes! Card YouTube account and notified these people to formally enter the competition.
Two of these entries were then selected as 'judge's choice' winners. This infringed the first condition of the competition, where 'each participant is required to open a YouTube Account to upload a video' that he has made.
In response to queries, OCBC replied three days later, stating that these participants signed forms giving OCBC permission 'to upload their video clips on their behalf'.
This response ignores the fact that OCBC was closely involved in both making, and then, choosing, the winning entries.
Is what happened fair and does it help unravel and promote the creativity the contest is supposed to unleash? Or is it just another gimmick aimed at promoting the bank's commercial product?
Ashish Ravinran
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_578960.html
In order to promote the new debit card, an online contest was launched, inviting people to make a video clip showing what they would do with $8,000 in 24 hours.
The winners would get to do precisely this with their new Yes! cards. Participants were encouraged to get their 'creative juices flowing', while ensuring that their videos complied with OCBC's terms and conditions.
I was shocked that one selected winner featured copyright-protected footage from three sources for more than half of his video.
Apart from lacking creativity, doesn't this violate the contest rules?
When the matter was raised, OCBC settled on two videos - surprisingly made by the organisers themselves. After interviewing willing people on the streets, the organisers edited and uploaded these video clips on their official Yes! Card YouTube account and notified these people to formally enter the competition.
Two of these entries were then selected as 'judge's choice' winners. This infringed the first condition of the competition, where 'each participant is required to open a YouTube Account to upload a video' that he has made.
In response to queries, OCBC replied three days later, stating that these participants signed forms giving OCBC permission 'to upload their video clips on their behalf'.
This response ignores the fact that OCBC was closely involved in both making, and then, choosing, the winning entries.
Is what happened fair and does it help unravel and promote the creativity the contest is supposed to unleash? Or is it just another gimmick aimed at promoting the bank's commercial product?
Ashish Ravinran
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_578960.html
