Bob Baxley, a soon-to-be-loyal MR reader, asks me the following question:
In considering entering in an online drawing for a bicycle, I read the complete rules. The contest is billed as a random drawing of those entered. But what struck me is that "Before being declared a winner, the selected entrant must first correctly answer, unaided, a time-limited, arithmetical, skill-testing question."(http://www.cervelo.com/contestrules.aspx)
Curious about the occurrence of this rule in other contests, I Googled this long phrase and it turns out it is very common in contest drawings: (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US305&q="correctly+answer,+unaided,+a+time-limited,+arithmetical,+skill-testing+question."&btnG=Search). Shorter snippets of this phrase return even more Google hits.
Any thoughts on why this stipulation is listed in the rules?
Maybe his contest is offering up this question to me. But I cannot answer it unaided. Help!
It changes the contest from a game of luck to a game of skill, thus avoiding lottery/gambling legal issues.
Brian’s probably right, although I suspect that the negative publicity beauty pageants have received because of dumb contestants has made all contest organizers try to weed out the overly dumb.
This is often the case in the UK also. If it’s a lottery then it has different tax and licensing treatment.
Yes, same in the UK. In fact, there has been a case in which the media regulator, Ofcom, had to rule on whether some questions were too simple and idiotic to count as ‘skill’. I have the reference somewhere.
Here’s a better test for skill vs. luck.
Exactly right, and note that the linked contest in question takes place in Toronto. Though even contests held in the US will have a statement about how Canadian residents will be required to answer a test of skill.
It is a good thing professional sports have zero element of luck!
As previous posts have noted, it’s a Canadian thing, invented many decades ago as a loophole to circumvent legal regulations. Every contest in Canada features the “skill-testing question” and the fine print usually says “no purchase necessary”. The Wikipedia article gives more detail.
It would be a great way to save some money on prizes.
Victim: “But I won the contest fair and square!”
Company: “No you didn’t, you failed the skill test!”
Victim: “But the skill test is impossible!”
Company: “Tell that to Gauss! He proved that theorem centuries ago!”
MattF – thanks. That was highly engaging.
To avoid delivering the goods
Comments on this entry are closed.