Red Bull blasted after F1 'VIP' competition winners had to take budget flights, share a hotel bed and even miss the end of the race



Two competition winners had been promised 'VIP' trip to Belgian Grand Prix

Had to pay for travel via Holland and Germany themselves to watch race

Shared bed at four-star hotel after mix-up



Missed Jenson Button lifting trophy to catch flight home 90 miles away

Complaint upheld by watchdog who said ad must not appear again

On paper it looked like an F1 fan's dream come true - a 'VIP trip' to the Belgium Grand Prix courtesy of Red Bull.

But the competition winner has since had a complaint to the advertising watchdog upheld after his experience turned out to be far from glamorous.

The man, who was accompanied by his brother, was flown on a budget airline via two different countries, had to arrange his own travel for the 150-mile round trip and the pair ended up sharing a hotel bed.

Drama: Lewis Hamilton crashes during the Belgium Grand Prix last year - one of the most prestigious races of the year - though the competition winners had to leave early Missing out: The 'VIP' competition winners missed Jenson Button lift the trophy after winning the Belgium Grand Prix because they had to catch a flight 90 miles away

The pair, who have not been named, were flown to Cologne, Germany, ahead of the race on August 31 last year.

They then had to pay their own way to Maastricht in Holland to arrive at their hotel and then travel a further 45 miles to the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps in Belgium.

After carrying their suitcases to the track, they were forced to leave early, missing Jenson Button's winning performance, in order to catch their flight home from Brussels Airport another 70 miles away.

The competition had promised: 'We're giving one winner a pair of tickets to watch the action as well as flights and accommodation at the four-star Beaumont hotel for two nights.'

After their travel woes the brothers had to share a bed because the hotel had ignored their request for two singles.

At the race they found their tickets were in grandstand rather than the VIP area.



The winner complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, questioning whether the competition had been properly represented and whether the VIP description of the prize was misleading.

Red Bull said that the conditions were made clear prior to entry, and pointed out that the Belgium Grand Prix was one of the most prestigious races on the F1 calendar.

The ad did not claim that event tickets were VIP and that the VIP headline referred to the entire package which included tickets to the event, flights and accommodation at a four-star hotel.

Embarrassing: Red Bull has been rapped after the winner of this 'VIP trip' competition suffered a dreadful experience Race: The competition winners were flown to Cologne, Germany, and had to pay their way to Maastricht in Holland to arrive at their hotel and then travel a further 45 miles to the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps (above) in Belgium

Because the flight was short haul only one class of travel was available and the tickets to the race cost £300 each.

Red Bull accepted that the winner flew into Cologne Airport in Germany and was then required to travel to the hotel which was located in the Netherlands and, after travelling to the event in Belgium, returned home from Brussels airport.

But the company pointed out that he been informed beforehand that he would have to organise his own travel.

Not quite four-star treatment: The pair were forced to share a bed for two nights after a mix-up at the Beaumont hotel in Maastricht, Belgium

The company apologised that despite specifying to the hotel two single beds on behalf of the complainant and his companion, they had failed to provide this.

And once it became clear they had to leave early for the return flight they had offered to cover the complainant’s expenses.

But the ASA upheld the complaints saying the pitfalls of the holiday had not been made clear.

It said: 'We considered that information relating to the different locations of the event, airport and hotel, and that travel to and from them was not included, was significant information likely to influence consumers’ understanding of the promotion and should therefore have been stated clearly in the promotional material.'

'We considered that the term “VIP”, in the context of the ad, was likely to be understood by readers as exclusive, and specifically non-standard, and that they would not expect, unless otherwise stated in the promotion, for the flights to be with a budget airline.

'We also considered that “VIP” had a specific meaning in the ticketing industry and that, given that the Grand Prix issued tickets that included admission to a VIP area, readers would expect the winning tickets to include this.

'The ad must not appear again in its current form.'

