The Mail on Sunday has issued an official apology for their defamatory review of Yipiii on page 3 of their yesterday print issue and amended it on their website.  So To find out what went down, here is some background information about what happened…

Being an entrepreneurial start-up company, we encounter what most entrepreneurial start-ups encounter – anonymity.  You don’t know us yet, you do not know what we offer, you do not know how safe it is, and you have no reason to trust us.  We recognise this problem, and in trying to be as transparent as we possibly can, we are 100% convinced and even proud of the fact that we have gone out of our way to give reporters a change to experience our service so they can give their honest feedback and let you – the customer – know what you might expect

It was working like a charm.  Everyone who tried it loved it.  They got the idea and what we were trying to do.  And while some had some valid critiques, over all we think that we received very good reviews from everyone and we were going from strength to strength.  Our new idea was being heard and understood – a difficult thing when you are trying to bring a new concept to light.  Even the Daily-Mail/ThisIsMoney wrote an extraordinary positive review on the 29 May 2012 titled: Spin to win before you buy: World’s first winmarket Yipiii lets you take a punt on free shopping at big name online stores.

But then, a few weeks later, The Mail on Sunday decided that they need a scandalous story.  But with no pantyless royal scandal picture and no bombs going off, surely a good sign for humanity as a whole, they decided to write something somewhat more ‘creative’, which was less fortunate for us here at Yipiii.  And since ‘play for your shopping’ just does not have that evil or insidious potential, the Mail on Sunday decided to change their honest review and go on a witch hunt instead.

Now not only was the article completely untrue, but they also called up  some of the CEO’s of some of Yipiii partner shops directly and told them they were supporting an ‘evil gambling site where nobody wins’.  Of course they hid the fact from the CEO’s and from the general public at large that Yipiii is a ‘winmarket’ and no money is ever lost.  And naturally these partner-shops, hearing these vitriol accusation became very hesitant in associating with us and pulled the plug on our association.  In all fairness, given the misinformation, we probably would have done the same… but it was still an unpleasant situation for us to be in.

Then the scandalous revelation started to unfold: aside from the 28 direct lies, erroneous facts, and blatant inaccuracies that we counted, we also found out that reporters made a headline statement of saying they ‘just won a £19 fish bowl’, when actually they had won items worth over £600 while they were doing their research and testing our site in games which they played for with the equivalent of £150 – and, of course, did not lose the money they played with either.

At this point we decided to make an official press complaint.  Mind you, this too was not without everyone under the sun telling us that we should not take on the slumbering giant and should just take the hit and let sleeping dogs lie.  But we did not feel it was a just hit.

And this is what we find so pernicious – not only is this dubious reporting and shoddy journalism, but it actually hurt you – the consumer.  Because we are trying to offer you the possibility to win your shopping everywhere – and the Mail on Sunday has literally tried to take that option away from you.

So what has come out of all of this?

Firstly, on Monday, 16 July 2012, Management Today did a great exposé, showing up the inept reporting by the Mail on Sunday.  The article was called: Mail on Sunday declares war on online start-up. A day later, the Mail on Sunday issued its Corrections & Clarifications where it admitted that

“In fact, one reporter used ‘free plays’ acquired during the experiment and went on to win an iPad worth up to £400.”

“And in a different experiment another journalist spent £40 and won £35 of flowers and a £101 iPod Nano.”

“Also, we said customers can top up their accounts as often as they like. In fact, top-ups are limited to £200 per day.”

But this did not even begin to scratch the surface.  Not only did they fail to retract the majority of their accusations and attacks of ill repute, but we could also prove that the journalist had won an ipad long before the article was ever published. The whole story was also picked up by the Tabloid Watch Blog in their post: Mail on Sunday reporters forget they won a £400 iPad.  And we are thankful for that too.

But the saga was still on-going.  Not only did they minimise the apologies in placing it in some corner of their site, but they also did not admit to everything.  After a long pursuit of the press complaint commission, we finally had the chance to disprove the article that was written by the Mail on Sunday and they had to print another apology.  In their second apology they at least had to explain Yipiii is indeed a risk-free winmarket system.

And this brings us up to Sunday.  On the 4 November 2012, the Mail on Sunday issued its second corrections and clarifications apology where they said:

“In fact, the 162 plays included ‘free spins’ won on previous plays and after our test,  but before publication, a reporter won a £400 iPad with remaining credit. Players have an 85 per cent chance of a prize or further play and non-winning stakes can be used as discounts on purchases through the site.”

And that “Users need to actively log in for the roulette wheel to appear when they are shopping. We apologise to Yipiii for not including this information in the article.”

So yes! We did what nobody expected from us to do or manage to achieve: we took on Goliath and defended ourselves. It cost us a lot of time, nerves and money, but the outcome proved us right. The best thing is that we survived. We are still here and ready to fight for your right to play to win their shopping.

But is that enough?  Should the Mail on Sunday have done more to repair the damage? Was this really freedom of the press or simply odious journalism? Is it fair to try to destroy a young new idea simply by inventing a strange story?  So here we would like to ask for your opinion. What do you think?  What should newspapers be able to get away with under the freedom of the press?

We want to hear from you.