Easypromos pick a winner: how the draw works
An Easypromos pick a winner draw selects winners at random from a participant list the organiser imports as an Excel, CSV or text file. The organiser sets the number of winners and alternates before the draw, notifies winners by email where addresses were imported, and winners carry the tax burden, as IRS guidance and organiser terms state.
Prepared by ContestsOnline editorial desk — Revised
What the app does
The Pick-a-Winner app draws winners at random from a list of participants that the organiser imports as a file. The Easypromos documentation names the formats: Excel, CSV or text. The pool and the draw are separate objects, and that separation is the whole design. In an easypromos pick a winner run, the organiser prepares the pool in a spreadsheet or exports it from another system, uploads it, and only then touches the draw itself. Everything downstream inherits the quality of that list, which is why the import step deserves more care than the button at the end.
The mechanism differs from a comment picker or a voting contest on the same platform. Nothing is gathered live from replies, and no public balloting decides the outcome, so the tool suits prize draws where entrants were collected offline, in store, at an event, or inside another product. The imported file can be the register of a promotion, a customer list, or the user base of a mobile app. The draw mechanism stays identical in each case; only the origin of the rows changes, and the organiser answers for how the rows got there.
- The pool is a file: Excel, CSV or text, imported by the organiser.
- The draw returns the number of winners and alternates set beforehand.
- Email contact with winners exists only where addresses were imported.
Where the pool comes from
Because the app draws from an imported file, the Easypromos documentation names one route for filling the pool: the organiser imports participants from Excel, CSV or text files. That constraint settles a common question directly. A giveaway among all the users that download or register in a mobile app is possible exactly when those users can be exported, because the tool does not connect to a store or an app backend on its own. Registration data works on the same terms as any other list, provided it arrives in a supported format with one user per row.
Additional entries follow from the same logic. The list is the pool, so one participant with five lines holds five chances. The clean way to give additional entries in the List Giveaway is to export rows with a repeat or multiplier column, expand them before import, and keep the original export as the record of how the weighting was earned. The platform handles the draw from whatever rows it receives, which keeps the weighting decision, and the burden of justifying it, on the organiser's side of the fence.
Cleaning happens before the file is loaded. The draw tool takes the rows as it finds them; it does not deduplicate, and it does not police how the list was compiled. An organiser who wants a fair pool removes duplicate registrations and ineligible users first, then imports. The order matters, because a list corrected after a draw is no longer the list the draw ran on, and entrants who ask for proof will compare the two.
- One row per participant, with a unique identifier in every line.
- An email address in the row where notification will run through the platform.
- The file exported after registration closes, or immediately before the draw.
Set the numbers, then run the draw
The draw itself is short. The documentation says the organiser can specify how many winners and alternates to select, and use the random draw app to obtain the results transparently and impartially. Alternates are not decoration: they are the standing solution to the silent winner, the disqualified entry and the unreachable address. Without them, a dead prize line ends in a second draw and a fresh explanation; with them, the published fallback order does the work.
Evidence is a habit, not a feature. Publish the method in the terms before entries close, the way the design marketplace 99designs did when its survey contest terms stated that the winner would be determined by a random drawing conducted on a fixed date in February 2023, using the Easypromos application. That sentence commits the organiser to a tool and a date in advance, and any entrant can hold the organiser to both. A draw whose method is announced before the pool exists is hard to argue with afterwards.
The word transparent carries weight only with something to show. The platform's own documentation promises a transparent and impartial draw, and what that promise needs from the organiser is a record: the imported file as it was at draw time, the winner and alternate lists as returned, and the results as published. An organiser who keeps those three artefacts can answer any challenge with the same pages an auditor would ask for.
Nothing in the draw checks eligibility. A term that disqualifies an entry, such as a region restriction, a staff household or an age floor, is applied by the organiser against the list, before the draw or during winner verification. The app returns names from the pool as imported, and the terms decide whether a returned name may keep the prize. That division of labour, mechanics versus terms, is the structure to keep in mind when writing either one.
- Set the winner count and the alternate count before the draw runs.
- Import the pool once, and keep the imported file unchanged as the record.
- Publish the method, the tool and the draw date in the terms before launch.
Contacting winners and the claim window
Notification is a platform feature with a condition attached. The Easypromos documentation states that if the participants' email addresses were imported, the organiser can use the platform to notify the winners by email. Read the condition carefully: where addresses were not imported, the tool offers no route, and the organiser must contact winners however their rules promise. The import decision is therefore also the notification decision, made weeks before anyone wins anything.
A claim window is the organiser's clause, not the platform's. The 99designs terms promised that the winner would be notified by email at the latest seven days after the contest period ended. That is a deadline on the organiser's own conduct, and a useful template: a fixed notice period, counted from the close of entries, gives winners a fair run at responding and gives latecomers a clean basis for the alternate to step in. The app will not enforce any such window on its own.
What a winner message needs is short. Name the prize, the way to claim it, the deadline for the reply, and what happens on silence. Send it to the address in the imported row, from a mailbox that can receive answers, and log the send. When a winner does not answer, replace the winner with the first alternate, and say so in the published results. The mechanics make the replacement routine; the terms make it legitimate.
- Import addresses when notification should run through the platform.
- Send a dated message that states the prize, the claim route and the deadline.
- Record what was sent and when, in case the terms promise a notice period.
Prize tax for United States winners
Tax follows the winner, not the tool. The Internal Revenue Service states that a person who wins a prize in a lucky number drawing, a quiz programme or a similar event must include it in income. The same obligation would apply to a prize drawn from an imported list or to one pulled live from comments; the selection method is irrelevant to the tax treatment.
The 99designs terms made the point contractual, stating that all taxes, as set forth by applicable law, would be the sole responsibility of the winner. That clause does not create the obligation, since the IRS rules already do; it removes any doubt about who pays, and it is a standard line for organisers to adapt with their own counsel. For payments made in 2026, the IRS describes a two-thousand-dollar information-reporting threshold, the figure at which a payer's information-return duty can arise. That threshold concerns the organiser's paperwork. A winner's duty to report a prize exists regardless of whether any return is ever filed, which is why prize guides repeat the point even for small draws.
- The winner reports a drawing prize as income under federal rules.
- Organiser terms may shift all applicable taxes onto the winner by clause.
- An information-reporting threshold governs when a payer files a return, not whether the prize is taxable.
Where this picker sits among the formats
One platform, three ways to reach a winner, and the differences are structural rather than cosmetic. A file draw, a comment picker and a voting contest take their pools from different places, so the checks and the records differ too. The table sets the three side by side, and the paragraph after it draws out the practical consequence for an organiser choosing between them.
Rules, records and verifiability
Terms do the work that mechanics cannot. A disqualification clause, a region rule, an eligibility floor and a claim deadline all live in the published conditions, and the draw app simply returns names from the pool. The organiser's job is to make the two layers agree: the pool that was imported matches the rules that were published, and the winners who were notified match the terms they were notified under. Where a conflict appears, the terms should say which layer yields.
Verification is cheapest when it is planned. One organiser's terms put the date, the tool and the notification deadline in writing before the contest opened, which is the pattern worth copying: commitments fixed early, evidence kept as the run proceeds. An organiser who records the winner and alternate lists at draw time can answer an entrant's challenge from the same documents, and an organiser who does not will be reconstructing the story from memory, which convinces nobody.
- Publish the tool, the date and the method in the terms before launch.
- Freeze the imported list as the pool of record for the draw.
- Record the draw results, including the alternates, and publish them.
The honest boundaries of the tool
The honest section, stated plainly: this tool draws from a list, and its responsibilities stop there. The platform sends winner emails when addresses were imported, and the organiser's own terms must carry everything else. A draw run on a dirty list is a fair draw from the wrong pool, which is why cleaning comes first. Every guarantee an entrant cares about, eligibility, notice, delivery, lives in the terms rather than in the app.
Nothing about the app's randomness excuses a weak process around it. The imported file is the pool of record, and any change to it after a draw is visible in the record, so treat the list as frozen once the draw has run. Where a winner must be replaced, draw the replacement from the alternates rather than re-running the draw on an edited pool, and note the substitution in the published results. Keep the imported file unchanged, keep the exported results, and the process will bear the scrutiny of anyone who asks.
- It does not gather entries; the organiser collects them somewhere else and imports the file.
- It does not clean the pool; duplicates and ineligible rows survive an unchecked import.
- It does not enforce claim windows; deadlines live in the organiser's published terms.
- It does not fulfil prizes; delivery and follow-up stay with the organiser.
| Format | Pool source | How winners are chosen | Notification route | What the terms must state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pick-a-Winner from a list | Imported Excel, CSV or text list | Random draw by the app, winner and alternate counts set first | Platform email where addresses were imported | Tool, draw date, notice period, tax responsibility |
| Comment picker | Replies under a post | Random pick from comments on a social network | Not published | Tool and date announced before entries close |
| Voting contest | Entries submitted to the contest | Public balloting or judging under the published rubric | Not published | Voting rules, judging rubric, disqualification grounds |
Readers ask
How does the Pick-a-Winner app work?
The Pick-a-Winner app draws winners at random from a list of participants that the organiser imports as an Excel, CSV or text file. The organiser specifies how many winners and alternates to select, runs the draw, and can use the platform to notify winners by email where their addresses were imported. Nothing happens in real time on a social network; the pool exists only as the file the organiser prepared.
Can I run a giveaway among all the users that download or register in a mobile app?
Yes, once those users exist as an exported list, because the app draws from an imported file rather than from a store or an app backend. Export the registrations, or the download records, in a supported format with one row per user, import the file, and run the draw. The app itself does not connect to any app store; the export the organiser prepares is the entire pool.
How many registrations can I upload to Pick-a-winner app?
No published cap on registrations appears in the platform documentation this reference draws on, so the practical bound is the file itself. A whole user base from a mobile app fits the same pattern: export it, keep one row per user, and import. For a current figure tied to a plan, ask the vendor rather than a reference page.
Can I give additional entries in the List Giveaway?
Yes, in the List Giveaway the imported list is the pool, so an additional entry is simply an extra row for that participant. The organiser can add extra lines for particular participants before importing, and a participant who appears several times holds several chances in the same draw. Put any weighting rule in the published terms first, stating what earns the extra chances and where the cap sits.
How can I contact the winners of my Giveaway?
The platform notifies winners by email when the organiser imported their addresses with the participant list, which is the built-in route. If the file carries no addresses, the tool sends nothing, and contact moves to whatever channel the organiser holds. Keep the message short, dated and written: state the prize, how to claim it, and the deadline. One organiser's terms promised email notice within seven days after the contest period closed, which is a workable pattern to copy.
Can I pick more than one winner, and what are alternates for?
Yes, the organiser specifies the number of winners and the number of alternates before running the draw. Alternates matter when a named winner never replies or turns out to be ineligible under the published terms: the next alternate takes the prize without a second draw from a changed pool. Set both numbers at the same time, before the draw runs, so the fallback order is fixed in advance and cannot be disputed afterwards.
Does an imported file replace collecting entries on social media?
An imported file replaces the pool, not the collection. A comment picker works directly on the replies under a post, while this app works on a file that already exists, so entries gathered elsewhere must be exported first. The two routes answer different needs: speed on a network post, versus control over an offline or multi-channel pool. Choose by where the participants already are, and by how much the published terms promise about the record.
How do I prove the draw was fair?
The documentation describes the draw as transparent and impartial, and the organiser supplies the rest of the evidence. Publish the method, the tool and the draw date in the terms before entries close, the way one organiser did when it named a random drawing on a fixed date. Keep the imported file unchanged as the pool of record, keep the winner and alternate lists the draw returned, and publish the results where entrants can read them.
Notes and sources
- easypromosapp.com. easypromosapp.com/pick-a-winner-app/.
- easypromosapp.com. easypromosapp.com/pick-a-winner-app/.
- easypromosapp.com. easypromosapp.com/pick-a-winner-app/.
- 99designs.com. 99designs.com/terms-and-conditions-contest-survey.
- irs.gov. irs.gov/publications/p525.
This is not legal advice and not tax advice; it is a reference summary published by ContestsOnline, an editorial site about online contests, and it does not replace a lawyer or an accountant. The platform covered here draws winners only from a file the organiser imports: it does not collect entries, it does not clean a list of duplicates, and it does not enforce any claim deadline. It can email winners where addresses were imported, and organisers handle the rest. Figures described here come from cited documentation and organiser terms.
Woobox's user terms require entrants to agree to the organiser's official rules, so any limit on bought or incentivised votes depends on the particular contest. Walmart's Associate Talent Search rules prohibit paying for votes and let Walmart void fraudulent votes or disqualify the entrant. The platform's terms and the organiser's rules are two documents, and a disqualification is decided under the second.
Woobox lists three warning signs of bought votes: many votes from one IP address, votes from people in different countries and regular voting intervals. Award Force says its platform detects and blocks automated or scripted voting and rate-limits rapid voting. Ordinary participation is uneven in time and independent in origin, so it shows none of those patterns; this describes how checks read a count and is not a method for passing one.
In the United States, the FTC says a sweepstakes cannot require a purchase to enter, and California says a sweepstakes must offer a way to enter without cost. Those rules concern sweepstakes entry, not votes: whether a contest allows paid votes is written in its own rules, and ViralSweep even lets organisers configure Pay to Vote. Contests whose rules bar outside votes are refused, and so are political ballots.
Once voting closes, a refund applies where votes ordered for a contest never appear in the count the contest itself displays. ViralSweep says its protections may silently flag and block a vote, and Woobox says votes from IP addresses it has flagged as fraudulent do not count even when the voter appears to have succeeded, so the displayed count is the test. An organiser's ruling or a disqualification is never refunded, and neither is an account ban such as the permanent one Gleam says a breach of its terms may bring.