Many times a week, we are often asked our POV on how to make a contest “Social.”  The idea of creating a Social Media contest where the winners are decided based on public voting appears to be a totally transparent, popular and appropriate way of decision making.  However good intended, it is not always the case.  Voter fraud and collusion continue to be a concern in running promotions in a fair manner which ensures all entrants are playing on a level playing field.  There are multiple forms for voter fraud to occur:

• A user voting for themselves by creating numerous email addresses or fake and distinct identities (e.g., multiple Facebook accounts / personas attached to unique email addresses)
• Encouraging voting by offering a share of the prize
• Paying an individual or service to vote for you
• “Gaming” the system by hacking a database or disabling technical roadblocks

Key enablers of voting fraud are leader boards and real-time vote counts.  In this case, too much information is not a good thing.  The real-time stats are an open invitation to cheat (regardless the size of the prize).

There are some well-known examples of allegations of voting fraud in recent times that involve leading brands.  Pepsi’s Refresh Project, a social media campaign run in 2010 was geared towards giving away thousands of dollars for innovative ideas.  Winners were chosen by public voting and there were allegations of collusion by those who eventually won. Charges included proxy voting and voting for each other to outrank the competition.

Given such developments, adherence to best practices and a certain degree of control in terms of restricting public voting for electing winners is necessary to keep a promotion from being gamed. It pays to follow some of these practices to conduct a fair promotion:

• Mandatory user registration before voting
• Using CAPTCHA to prevent automation of entries
• Confirmation of email prior to voting
• Blocking suspicious entrants
• Monitoring entries and log files for suspicious activity

The Official Contest Rules must contain clear directions for entrants and language that dissuades participants from fraudulent acts.  Unlimited voting should be avoided and public voting should not become the sole criterion in finalizing the outcome of a Contest.  Use of third-party external judges is encouraged to make the judging process as fair as possible.

The primary goal of Marden-Kane is the beneficial welfare of our clients.  We work to educate our clients on best practices and often encourage them to err on the side of caution.  In some instances, it is OK and even recommended to be a bit “boring”.  All it takes is one disgruntled entrant posting to social networks to challenge the integrity of the contest and that of the Sponsor (the brand).  A great example of this can be found at http://bit.ly/wnYNeF.

Marketers need to balance their desire for contest virality with contest integrity.  They need to ask themselves if their organization is equipped to address the negative chatter should a contest appear to be compromised.