| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Coles / Felix - Win for a chance to play for $100K or Coles gift cards instantly |
|
|
|
posted 14-3-2025 @ 11:59 AM
|
|
www
|
|
Not sure why they told you could only enter once. Seems they don't know their own t&c
Multiple entries permitted, subject to the following:
(a) only one (1) entry permitted per Eligible Purchase (regardless of the amount spent or number of Participating Product(s) purchased in that
transaction); and (b) each entry must be submitted separately and in accordance with entry requirements.
|
|
|
Charger77
|
|
posted 14-3-2025 @ 12:00 PM
|
|
www
|
|
Congratulations winners. Some very well fed cats out there! |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 14-3-2025 @ 12:00 PM
|
|
www
|
|
In fairness I just had no idea that people bought this much product .
Considering not every purchase wins it is alot of purchases. Not a wonder product comps are hard to win at times |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 14-3-2025 @ 12:12 PM
|
|
www
|
|
I'm wondering whether Hayley P. Sheree P. and Bryce P. are from the same household. Considering this was an "instant win" and not every entry was a
winning one it's possible Bryce P. bought even more than is shown from this list. It would have cost a fortune! |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 14-3-2025 @ 12:35 PM
|
|
www
|
|
LOL, oh my god....that's insane |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 14-3-2025 @ 12:46 PM
|
|
www
|
|
Congratulations to all winners.
SA is very lucky! |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 14-3-2025 @ 10:33 PM
|
|
www
|
|
I got a reply the next day, maybe my email was answered by someone efficient? They didn't have record of my email as the email used for the winning
entry? Luckily I was able to send them a screenshot of the instant win page and the provisional winner email. They used my mobile number to search
for my entry and found that yes, I did have a win. It was only a $20 win but it's worth the chase these days!!
Good luck, I'd say try them again |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 12:40 AM
|
|
www
|
|
nice work Bryce P - 186 wins is a good effort! ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 12:44 PM
|
|
www
|
|
A limit on the the number of entries allowed per household for every competition is probably the only way to give everyone a fair chance |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 12:51 PM
|
|
www
|
|
There wasn't a limit on entries on this one
And it still would not be fair when people in SA can win 100+ times and people everywhere else can win once |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 01:03 PM
|
|
www
|
|
Bye bye Felix… what a joke the winners list is! I won 10 bucks and that’s all I was allowed to win. No incentive to bother with this again. |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 02:23 PM
|
|
www
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Sands  | There wasn't a limit on entries on this one
And it still would not be fair when people in SA can win 100+ times and people everywhere else can win once |
Gigantic spend considering all winners likely had non-winning entries/receipts too.
Minimum spend $5.
(a) only one (1) entry permitted per Eligible Purchase.
The cheapest Felix product cost $4.50.
2 x Felix Treats cost $9 to achieve $5 minimum spend.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 03:00 PM
|
|
www
|
|
How is it fair if SA has a rule they allowed to win more than one prize n other states not if promoters say that in terms n conditions ? How is that
justified? |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 03:40 PM
|
|
www
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Beagle | | Quote: Originally posted by Sands | There wasn't a limit on entries on this one
And it still would not be fair when people in SA can win 100+ times and people everywhere else can win once |
Gigantic spend considering all winners likely had non-winning entries/receipts too.
Minimum spend $5.
(a) only one (1) entry permitted per Eligible Purchase.
The cheapest Felix product cost $4.50.
2 x Felix Treats cost $9 to achieve $5 minimum spend.
|
they were on special a few times 2 for $6 |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 03:54 PM
|
|
www
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by busyhomemumof3 | | How is it fair if SA has a rule they allowed to win more than one prize n other states not if promoters say that in terms n conditions ? How is that
justified? |
Yes, it is written into their South Australian Government legislation.
Competition makers can not restrict the amount of times someone from South Australia can win
Would be fairer if that only applies to competitions only open to South Australia Residents
I am sure Felix and other big companies hate the rule
Maybe
Have a prize pool for South Australia and One for Rest of Australia
eg 10% of instant prize pool capped for South Australia, and 90% for Rest of Australia
or
Max 5 entries per person ( some already do this which is quite good )
or
someone suggested to me that maybe just exclude South Australia all together 
Terms . Open to all states except South Australia.
Maybe that would cause the Government in South Australia to change the
legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 04:21 PM
|
|
www
|
|
No, it's not luck. It's playing the game of exploiting unfair rules that give SA a huge advantage in product comps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 04:43 PM
|
|
www
|
|
Agreed Smiley !! |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 05:43 PM
|
|
www
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by merivale | | Considering this was an "instant win" and not every entry was a winning one it's possible Bryce P. bought even more than is shown from this list. It
would have cost a fortune! |
There's also a B P listed for WA & QLD. |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 08:07 PM
|
|
www
|
|
I agree Grifster that the rules of say a limit of 6 entries per person for the entire competition is much fairer
, although SA should have same rules as the other states should be fair equal rules for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 10:01 PM
|
|
www
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Grifster | | Quote: Originally posted by busyhomemumof3 | | How is it fair if SA has a rule they allowed to win more than one prize n other states not if promoters say that in terms n conditions ? How is that
justified? |
Yes, it is written into their South Australian Government legislation.
Competition makers can not restrict the amount of times someone from South Australia can win
Would be fairer if that only applies to competitions only open to South Australia Residents
I am sure Felix and other big companies hate the rule
Maybe
Have a prize pool for South Australia and One for Rest of Australia
eg 10% of instant prize pool capped for South Australia, and 90% for Rest of Australia
or
Max 5 entries per person ( some already do this which is quite good )
or
someone suggested to me that maybe just exclude South Australia all together
Terms . Open to all states except South Australia.
Maybe that would cause the Government in South Australia to change the
legislation
|
Well said Grifster!
Something needs to change.
South Australia need their own competitions for just them because the rules are very different for the rest of Australia. |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 10:11 PM
|
|
www
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Grifster | | Quote: Originally posted by Beagle | | Quote: Originally posted by Sands | There wasn't a limit on entries on this one
And it still would not be fair when people in SA can win 100+ times and people everywhere else can win once |
Gigantic spend considering all winners likely had non-winning entries/receipts too.
Minimum spend $5.
(a) only one (1) entry permitted per Eligible Purchase.
The cheapest Felix product cost $4.50.
2 x Felix Treats cost $9 to achieve $5 minimum spend.
|
they were on special a few times 2 for $6 |
I didn't even see the minimum spend of $5. I entered with a $3 pack and won. So that's weird. |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 10:27 PM
|
|
www
|
|
I'm from South Australia and the rules have changed over the years. More than 15 or 20 years ago we were entitled to one free entry per person ...
then someone (or many people) complained and that rule got changed. We could no longer do that ... but we could then win more than one prize. Other
States could have the same legislation but choose not to obviously. Considering this was an "instant win" (and heaven's knows how they can tell if
the person who got that instant win was from South Australia or not at the time of winning) whether a South Australian won or not they would still
keep entering to make sure that they had more than one entry in the Major Prize Draw. Did anyone from any of the States win more than one "instant
win" prize and not have it honoured because they had already won a prize? It is a ridiculous way to run a competition. I would hate to win more than
one instant win prize but have it taken away because I had already won another one. In my opinion companies should go back to entering via mail or,
at the very least, not send out the prizes until the competition has concluded. If a cash prize is RECEIVED during the competition it can easily be
spent to enter multiple times (compounding with each further win) ... whereas, if you had to use your own money up front, you would probably not enter
100s of times ... unless you are very rich. I certainly couldn't afford to. I also feel that it is much better to get everyone to enter and not have
instant wins at all ... but a draw for ALL prizes at the end of the competition. This was a much fairer way of doing things in the "good old days".
It is not a good look for companies when the winner's list has more than 30% of the prizes going to two or three households. Not all South
Australians deliberately "abuse" the system. Most of us, I am sure, are happy to win just one prize ... if you're even lucky enough to do that. |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 11:53 PM
|
|
www
|
|
It's strange that a 'new' household has dominated this competition, but a surname that usually dominates didn't even win once. |
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-3-2025 @ 11:58 PM
|
|
www
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by BSB11 | | It's strange that a 'new' household has dominated this competition, but a surname that usually dominates didn't even win once.
|
Yes ... I noticed that too. |
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
