My e-mail to Wedding Diary - Alice Kühne

This is what I received from Carl Wallace, Wedding Diary, a few days after the competition...

Dear Alice

We would like to thank you for taking part in the 2010 Bride of the Year competition. It was wonderful to have had the opportunity to meet you and I certainly hope that our paths cross again in future.

It has come to my attention that some of the finalists are discontented with the results of the competition and feel the judging to be unfair. This has been sited mainly due to the fact that the winning bride, Chanel Ferreira, works for the Aleit Group.

I would like to stress – most importantly - that The Aleit Group was not in charge of the competition or the related rules and regulations. They had no say in the method chosen to select the finalists nor did they have any input into the evaluation of the contestants on the night. In fact, they were not even consulted on how we ultimately came up with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd positions.Furthermore, The Aleit Group has no form of ownership or profit share in Wedding Diary or in the Bride of the Year Competition. Regarded as South Africa’s top Wedding and Events Coordination company, I merely approached them to assist in executing the mechanics of this event. It was vital to gain sponsorship from the top suppliers in the industry because without this, the event would not have been possible. Aleit was clearly the key and his good relations with vendors in the industry helped us achieve our goal.As you may or may not be aware, Aleit Swanepoel was originally part of the judging panel. The minute one of his staff members entered the competition, I asked him to step down which is what he did - immediately and with grace. The ultimate results of the competition were decided upon by an independent judging panel and to this end I can confirm that everything was above board. This statement is supported by the extended time it took them to award a winner on the night. The decision was a clearly a tough choice!From a legal perspective I would like to bring the following points to your attention: 

·         The competition was open to all brides who were married between June 2009 and June 2010. There were no restrictions of any kind as to the status of the entrants.

·         There was no condition as to the exclusion of any entrants, whether they were employed by the organizers, sponsors or anybody else involved in the competition or otherwise. This was clear to all the entrants before they entered this competition. It was therefore to be expected that ANY bride could enter, whether the bride was involved with any of the related entities or not. Such terms would have been written into the competition rules should we have had reason to exclude a special class of people. A complaint could thus also be made against any of the other contestants entering for any reason whatsoever

·         The judges were all independent of the Aleit Group and Aleit resigned as a judge to ensure fairness. There is further no averment that the winner was favoured due to her connection with the Aleit Group.

·         Apart from a form of working relationship between some of the entities, there is no suggestion of any bias by any of the judges or any proof thereof.

·         It was clear to most of the contestants that Chanel Ferreira was employed by the Aleit Group as this was openly discussed during the competition. Should this have been a problem for the contestants, or if they felt during the course of the competition that the judging would not be fair due to the said fact, this surely would have been raised by the contestants before the final decision was made. The fact that the same was not raised as an objection indicates to the merit of Chanel being chosen as a clear winner.

·         With regards to the point raised regarding the Lotteries Act, the Lotteries Act, Act 57 of 1997, does not apply to this competition as there was no competition entry fee or subscription fee payable by the entrants. Furthermore, the competition cannot be seen as a “lottery” as the prizes were not distributed by luck or chance.

·         There is, in summary, no legal basis for the complaints lodged to date.With regards to the complaints regarding the judging, the costs and the association between the relevant entities - the rules are clear namely:  

9.1   The orginasiers reserved the right to amend the terms and conditions at any time;

9.2   Rule 6 – The judges decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into;

9.3   Rule 7 – Flights and accommodation will not be paid for by Wedding Diary;If you have any further questions or wish to submit feedback regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact me, Carl Wallace at info@weddingdiary.co.za.

Kind Regards                                           

Carl Wallace | 084 501 5910

Managing Director

Wedding Diary

www.weddingdiary.co.za

My reply:

Hi Carl,

Thank you for this e-mail, I have heard much of the disgruntlementmyself and it's good to hear your side of the story.

I completely understand that there is nothing wrong legally, it just"looks" bad from a PR perspective, and it is bound to raise someeye-brows when the winner works for the main sponsor/organiser. I canonly suggest that in the future, you exclude all employees of sponsorsand organisers.

Another point that was a cause for concern was the very top-heavydistribution of the prizes. The runners up only get crumbs of localholidays while the main winner walks away with a whole loaf ofexpensive prizes. When this winner happens to be involved with theorganiser, then one tends to wonder: "Did those prizes really exist?"

I also recall in the earlier stages of the competition, there was anannouncement that there would be a prize awarded to the bride with themost SMS votes. This was taken away and no mention of this prize tookplace on the night.

But overall, it was a lovely experience and I have met some greatwomen. Thank you for the opportunity and I hope that this event willgrow bigger and more trouble-free year by year.

Regards,

Alice Kühne

My point is: it's just all in bad faith letting the organiser's people win. The winner is a lovely person (Chanel, if you're reading this, please understand that I don't have anything against you, but Wedding Diary and the Aleit Group only!) but even if the winner had looked like Angelina Jolie and had gift of the gab like TV presenter, the other contestants would still be disgruntled because the competition did not seem fair. And the whole process was somewhat unprofessional. Rules changed randomly and without notice; prizes were only announced when the finalists were announced; the judging criteria were never made known to us; and etc.

It's all very well for them to say "there was no competition entry fee or subscription fee payable by the entrants", but what about all our friends and family who spent their time, energy and money voting for us? Although it was voluntary, half of us then had to fork out airfares, car hire, accommodation fees to attend the final event. All the husbands and other supporters also paid R300 per ticket to be there. Some brides hired their own hair and makeup people. One bride was pregnant so she had to buy a brand new wedding dress! To go through all those expenses to reach a result that looks somewhat suspicious... makes us more than a bit annoyed.

But I think the unprofessionalism will speak for itself. This is the only interaction I have ever had with Wedding Diary and the Aleit Group, and I will probably never do business with them. Our friends and family... probably all feel the same. So 23 disgruntled brides, multiply that by atleast 100 supporters each, then word of mouth spreads exponentially... 

I can only say: EPIC FAIL.