How to use a prize draw generator and prove the draw was fair
Crowdfunder publishes one documented route: from a Charity Profile, select 'My charity', click 'New prize draw', then launch the campaign from the setup page. That profile is one documented route, not the only eligible account type, because businesses, individuals, charities, organisations and community groups all run prize draws on the platform. A prize draw generator then handles the drawing itself, taking the entries the campaign collects and naming a winner at random.
Prepared by ContestsOnline editorial desk — Revised
What a prize draw generator does with the entries
The mechanic fits in one sentence: a prize draw generator holds the pool of entries, applies chance, and returns a name. The regulator's standard for that return is fixed. Prize draw winners must be chosen in accordance with the laws of chance, and the accepted way to get there is a computer process that produces verifiably random results. Everything else a picker offers, from filters to wheels, sits on top of that single requirement.
Tools differ mainly in the pool they read and the interface they show. Some pick from comments under a post, some from a registered participant list, and some from a numbered roster the organiser pastes in. Easypromos documents a retailer draw that needed six winners selected at random from registered participants, so a prize draw generator set past one name is an ordinary, documented job.
- The pool: every entry eligible under the published rules
- The method: a verifiably random process, or independent supervision
- The count: how many names the pick returns, fixed in advance
What the free tier of a picker covers
FateWheel states that picking a winner is free, with or without an account, and caps its free use with daily limits on draws and on how many comments one fetch pulls; a free account raises both. That is the honest shape of a free prize draw generator online: the draw itself costs nothing, while volume is what gets metered.
But cost claims deserve the same scrutiny as randomness claims. Crowdfunder describes its prize draws as free to set up with no platform fees, while transaction fees still apply, which is a statement about a different part of the machine. Free setup and a free pick are two claims, and a vendor can be making either without the other.
Draw several winners from one pool
Multiple winners are a setting, not a workaround. RandomPicker selects every winner the organiser sets in a single draw, with or without allowing the same entry to win more than once, and a wheel picker, the additive route, simply spins again: the drawn winner is removed automatically, so the next spin is the second prize and the one after it is the third.
Easypromos documents the scaled case: a retailer needed six winners drawn at random from registered participants. Six is not a special case. The mechanics that return one name return six; only the setting changes. Plan the prize order before the pick runs, and write into the rules whether a first-prize winner stays in the pool for the later prizes, where entrants can read the decision.
The entry form template and what it must state
A prize draw entry form template is a compliance document as much as a convenience. The advertising code expects the form to explain how to participate, including significant conditions and costs, along with other major factors that shape a person's decision to enter. Any free-entry route is explained clearly and prominently, which is the clause that keeps a paid promotion on the right side of the lottery tests.
The same expectations continue after the form. Communications about the promotion must publish the name of the organiser and include a clear and simple method of accessing the terms and conditions, and entrants must be told how the draw will be carried out, with clear details of the rules, entry instructions, dates and deadlines.
- The entry pool exactly as it stood at the moment of the pick
- The picker settings as configured, including any exclusions
- The drawn result, with the time it was produced
- The published rules in the version entrants saw
Numbers, wheels and lucky draws
The tool family is wider than the name suggests. Regulator guidance on lucky draws lists the mechanisms in one line: lottery balls, a lucky draw box, a lucky wheel, computer software or a computer program. A prize draw number generator belongs to that last group; it applies the same randomness to a numbered list of entries, and the fairness test does not change with the interface.
What the interface changes is visibility. A wheel-faced prize draw generator shows the pool shrinking as winners come out, which entrants read more easily than a silent sort, and the YesNoWheelApp mechanic of removing each drawn winner before the next spin leaves a sequence anyone watching can audit. Neither display replaces the record; both are ways of showing it.
Proving the draw followed the laws of chance
The proof standard is written down. Promoters must ensure prizes are awarded in accordance with the laws of chance and, unless winners are selected by a computer process that produces verifiably random results, by an independent person, according to the advertising code. In practice that leaves two clean routes: run the draw on a process whose randomness can be verified, or have someone independent do it or supervise it.
Responsibility does not transfer to the tool. Promoters are responsible for administering their prize draws and must ensure promotions run under proper supervision, with adequate resources in place. A prize draw generator that returns a name does not lift the supervision duty; the generator is simply the method that the supervision oversees.
Where a lucky draw needs a permit
Jurisdictions differ, and one regulator is explicit about it. Macao's Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau requires commercial lucky draw activities, whether held offline or online, to be notified to it in advance and covered by an administrative permit, with the application submitted at least ten days before the activity. Its guidance names computer software and programs among the covered mechanisms, so a generator run online sits inside the rule, not beside it.
Elsewhere the obligations are lighter but real: publish the organiser's name, give clear access to the terms, and tell entrants how the pick will be carried out. No general guide settles a specific jurisdiction, so the organiser's own check belongs before launch, not after the entries are in.
When entrants doubt the result
Doubt is expensive. An entrant who cannot reconstruct the pick assumes the worst, and the accusation travels further than the announcement did. The requirements in the regulator's guidance are, read together, a checklist against exactly that accusation, because each one hands the organiser something concrete to show: a named organiser, a published method, an independent supervisor or a verifiable process.
There is a failure in the other direction too, a result that looks too clean. Six identical winner announcements with no method statement read worse than one announcement that names the process, the entry count and the supervisor. Specifics are the currency of trust here, and every one of them costs nothing to publish.
Which route fits which pool
Three decisions blur together in practice: where the entries live, who or what performs the pick, and where a cost appears. The documented tools split along exactly those lines. A campaign platform such as Crowdfunder carries the draw from setup page to launch; a standalone picker reads a comment thread; a wheel gives the audience something to watch.
Whatever the route, a prize draw generator carries the same duty: the winner must be drawn in accordance with the laws of chance, on a verifiably random process or under independent supervision, with the organiser keeping the record. Free or paid, automated or watched, that is the part entrants ask about first.
| Tool or route | What it does | Free status | Winners |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crowdfunder prize draw | Carries the campaign from setup page to launch | Free to set up | Not published here |
| FateWheel giveaway picker | Picks a winner from the comments it fetches | Free with or without an account, with daily limits | Not published here |
| RandomPicker | Selects all set winners in a single draw | Not published here | As many as the organiser sets, with optional repeat wins |
| YesNoWheelApp wheel | Spins the pool and removes each drawn winner automatically | Not published here | One per spin, then spin again |
Procedure
-
Open the charity dashboard menu
From a Charity Profile on Crowdfunder, go to the right-hand drop-down menu on the dashboard and select 'My charity'. That profile is the documented route, though not the only eligible account type for running a prize draw.
-
Start the draw from the setup page
Click either 'New project' or 'New prize draw'. Crowdfunder then opens a setup page where the campaign is created and launched, and the same route covers businesses, individuals, charities, organisations and community groups.
-
Read the draw guidelines before launch
Crowdfunder instructs organisers to read and fully comply with its Prize Draw Guidelines before launching. Treat that as a gate rather than a suggestion: the guidelines decide whether the campaign opens at all.
-
Publish the method, the rules and the deadlines
Tell entrants how the draw will be carried out, with clear details of the rules, entry instructions, dates and deadlines. Publish the organiser's name and a clear, simple method of accessing the terms and conditions, and state any free-entry route clearly and prominently.
-
Pick the winner with a verifiably random process
Run the pick on a computer process that produces verifiably random results, which is the accepted way to choose the winner in accordance with the laws of chance. If no such process is used, the guidance requires the draw to be done, or supervised, by someone independent. Set the number of winners first; a single draw returns all of them.
-
Keep the record the supervision duty asks for
Promoters are responsible for administering the draw under proper supervision, with adequate resources in place, so keep the entry pool, the picker settings and the drawn result on file. That record answers an entrant who asks how the name was chosen.
Readers ask
Is the winner generator free?
Yes, in the documented cases. FateWheel states that picking a winner is free, with or without an account, and its free use carries daily limits on draws and on how many comments one fetch pulls, with a free account raising both. Crowdfunder describes prize draws as free to set up, though transaction costs still apply to payments, so free attaches to a specific part of the machine and the parts deserve separating before launch.
How does it pick a random winner?
The generator applies the laws of chance to the entry pool, which is the standard the advertising regulator sets for prize draws. A prize draw generator meets it with a computer process that produces verifiably random results; where no such process exists, the draw must be done or supervised by someone independent. State the method to entrants before the pick runs, not after.
Can I pick multiple winners?
Yes. RandomPicker selects every winner the organiser sets in a single draw, with or without allowing the same entry to win more than once, and a wheel picker simply spins again after removing each drawn winner. Easypromos documents a retailer pick that returned six winners from registered participants, so the mechanic scales well past two.
How do I prove the winner was chosen fairly?
Keep the record the fairness rules describe: the declared method, the entry pool and the result the prize draw generator returned. A verifiably random computer process is the accepted proof in itself, and the documented alternative is a draw done or supervised by someone independent. Publishing the organiser's name and a simple route to the terms and conditions completes what entrants see.
How random is the draw?
Random enough to satisfy the laws of chance, the regulator's own test, when the process produces verifiably random results. Without that verification the documented safeguard is independence: someone with no stake in the outcome does the draw or supervises it. Vendor marketing offers nothing stronger than either route, so the verification is the real answer.
Can I exclude certain names from the draw?
Yes, and the exclusion happens before the pick, not during it. Entries that break the published rules leave the pool first, and the random draw then covers everyone remaining. The wheel mechanic shows the same principle afterwards: each drawn winner is removed automatically, so one name cannot win twice unless the rules allow it.
Can I use bonus or weighted entries?
Yes, if the rules declare the weighting before entries open. The pick still has to follow the laws of chance, so bonus entries belong to the declared method rather than an adjustment made afterwards. RandomPicker's option to let the same entry win more than once is one documented form, and the setting belongs in the rules entrants can read.
Notes and sources
- help.crowdfunder.co.uk. help.crowdfunder.co.uk/en/articles/5367006-prize-draws.
- help.crowdfunder.co.uk. help.crowdfunder.co.uk/en/articles/8837568-starting-a-new-project-or-prize-draw-from-your-charity-profile.
- asa.org.uk. asa.org.uk/advice-online/promotional-marketing-independent-judges-and-observers.html.
- asa.org.uk. asa.org.uk/advice-online/promotional-marketing-independent-judges-and-observers.html.
- fatewheel.com. fatewheel.com/tools/giveaway-picker.
ContestsOnline publishes this as organiser guidance, not legal advice. It does not judge whether a specific draw is lawful where you run it, and some jurisdictions demand a permit before a lucky draw, as Macao's regulator does. The page never promises a win, never explains any form of vote manipulation, and quotes no currency amounts. Vendor features and free tiers change without notice, so confirm against the organiser documentation before launch.
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.