DOES ADVERTISING LIE? OR JUST STRETCH THE TRUTH?

Whatever market you’re in, the advertising regulations inevitably state that copy and claims must be truthful.  But in reality there is evidence to suggest they can be anything but.  Because skillful copywriters are adept at turning a phrase that infers a positive for a product, which in fact is greater than the product can actually deliver.

EXTRAVAGANT CLAIMS & SELECTIVE DATA

UPC’s current campaign (www.upc.ie) is arguably case in point.  240mb broadband is the unrelenting promise being bandied from posters, webpages and press and TV ads.  Devoid of any caveats such as “up to” or the oft-used asterix, the promise is simply stated and crystal clear – sign up and get 240mb.

However, as a new user I'd contest that this is an exaggerated claim.  Several engineer visits, countless hours on helplines and weeks later I am still only peaking at 50 something…  a mere fifth of the promised 240mb.  And according to the UPC personnel we spoke with, ours is not an exception either!

Furthermore, while examining UPC’s advertising I noted the brand’s justification of its “fastest broadband in Ireland” claim - a piece of research conducted over 1 month among 52 households….hmmm is this really representative of the 1.5 million households in the country?  This point aside, even the research showed that “only 8% of users achieved the advertised (download) speed”. 

https://www.samknows.com/broadband/uploads/foundationmodule/SamKnows_UPC_120Mbps_Report_Nov14.pdf

So as a consumer I think I'd be forgiven for thinking that the brand was knowingly stretching the truth with its speed claims.

THE SALE JUSTIFIES THE MEANS

Selective use of data, and careful crafting by wordsmiths, allows advertisers to assert what they know are desirable aspirations for consumers.  The depth of the deception probably correlates to the depth of the disappointment among consumers when the fallacy is exposed, so in many cases the brand is actually doing itself a disservice.   

Perhaps the sale justifies the means in Machiavellian marketing, and sure what industry checks are in place to discourage such an attitude?

The Advertising Standards Authority Ireland (ASAI) deals with complaints about advertising.  (Though without wide communication, how many consumers know that there is even a process, is doubtful).   To be fair there are many complaints that the ASAI upholds.  But, and here’s the rub, the due process is so lengthy that most ad campaigns have already run their course before judgement is passed.  And, with little real teeth, there are even a number of advertisers that just don’t bother to refute or respond to the consumers complaints put to them via the ASAI, or even act on the judgements passed – indicating a clear disregard for the process.

ERRONEOUS CLAIMS

Nowhere are economical truths and misleading claims more prevalent than in the food and pharma industries.  Health and wellness have risen high in the ranks of consumer motivations in recent years and brands are wise to this and quick to suggest a positive association with their products.  I’ve long railed against the excessive use of “natural” on food packaging as an erroneous reference to some products’ contents. 

The opportunity to piggy back on a consumer obsession with food and weight and health is evident.  Though not all consumers will be lured in by attractive copy.  One complaint  to the ASAI (14/4 ref: 22558) challenged Green Farm Foods’ claim to be “nothing but low in calories”.  He cited “EU Regulations1 that it must not contain more than 40kcal per 100g, however, one of the products featured in the advertisement had a calorific level of 120kcal per 100g”. 

The complaint was upheld, the company apologised and said they would amend the ad, and the ASAI instructed them to remove the line…..

(Looking at the website on 5/5/2015 I see the TV ads on the site still carry the line linked to a product that is 112kcal per 100g)

ARGUING SEMANTICS

It is ironic that with the ubiquity of advertising, and the reduction of consumers’ attention span, copy needs to be short and impactful.  Words are carefully selected to grab attention and to resonate.   Aer Lingus’ description of its Flex Fares being “refundable” if you cancelled, is one such an example.  Consumers were being invited to book a fare, with the assurance that if they needed to cancel, that’s ok.  

But then as one complaint discovered (14/8 ref: 232226), “refundable” meant unused taxes less the admin fee which in his case equated to 9.4% of what he actually paid.  While arguably semantically correct, the brevity of the assertion, is deceptively economical with the truth.  The complaint was upheld and Aer Lingus told to change its wording.  The original line in the main copy has been removed, though “refundable ticket” is still listed as a “Benefit of Flex Fare” http://www.aerlingus.com/travelinformation/planandbook/flexfare/

BEST IN CLASS?

Superlatives are another great copy characteristic with consumer appeal… biggest, best, fastest, and most popular.  And with behavioural economics explaining that consumers are sheep-like in their purchasing choices - there’s comfort in the knowledge that the choice or decision is the same as the masses - superlatives reign in many a strapline:

Toyota’s “best re-sale value of any car brand in Ireland” offers reassurance, comfort and consumer appeal.  But when challenged by Volkswagen (14/4 Ref: 22076) the line was deemed to be potentially misleading in its unqualified format.  To be fair the research substantiating the claim was judged to be robust, but that the claim as it stood, the ASAI felt, implied all cars within the range which was misleading.

Interestingly this, along with other complaints, was made by an industry player rather than consumer.   The advertising industry will rightly say this is self-regulation at play, and there are processes such as copy clearance etc. to also try and keep advertising in check.  But the harsh reality is that advertising can and does often sell consumers a pup.  And consumer reticence, or lack of knowledge of how, to complain, means it is likely to continue.  But….

Deceptive advertising results in disillusioned consumers, and ultimately erodes trust.  And trust is the sought after Holy Grail of today’s brands and indeed of today’s business.  

So it’s not just Caveat Emptor.  It’s actually Caveat Venditor!

McDonald's customers aren't "Lovin It"

One of the biggest global brands and corporates, McDonald's, is under serious pressure as it announced on Friday (23^rd Jan 2015) more declining results for the fourth quarter and year that President and Chief Executive Officer Don Thompson called "challenging” for McDonald's around the world.

Notwithstanding the global giant still being the largest fast food brand with substantially greater sales than the #2 Starbucks, there are grave issues that would appear to be some way off from being redressed:-

Product Schizophrenia?

An important aspect of any brand is the brand promise, that once set, is met.  Uniformity was key to McDonalds’ promise as consumers could go into any outlet anywhere in the world and know exactly what to expect.  But the asset that is the McDonald’s menu has wavered as the organisation has been trialled and altered its original menu that has grown some 70% since 2007.

The “Create Your Taste” burgers for example, which is planned to be rolled out this year, allows customers to use touch screens to create their bespoke burger from a menu of 20 premium ingredients and then to a sit and wait on average 7 minutes before a server brings it to the table. At almost every level this sits in stark contrast to the original fast food offering.

Also the “Dollar Menu”, which was to bring customers in on the cheap and upsell once there, is an acknowledged failure by executives.  Healthy options, café culture and a certain amount of localisation have arguably further distorted the McDonald’s offering and consequently its loyal consumer base’s expectations.

The problem with consumer expectations in the current dynamic marketplace, is that their fragility leads to promiscuity where disappointed consumers have any number of other options from which to choose when a brand lets them down.

Food integrity

As the sales indicate there is clearly still an appetite for fast food (and McDonald’s).   But fast food that is fresh and value for money - as indicated by Nielsen data “natural” and “fresh” are the top desirable attributes, three quarters of consumers believe they “are what they eat” and 43% stated food with natural ingredients to be very important. 

Food integrity and provenance are clearly fast becoming hygiene factors in the food marketplace.  And food organisations from product to supply chain to retail have recognised the need to re-evaluate their product offering in these terms.  The growth of Subway’s brand value - more than 7,000 per cent since 2006 outperforming the next highest growth brands AT&T and Amazon - is at least in part down to the brand speaking to this consumer need with its “Eat Fresh” message.  McDonald's it would appear, has been slower to acknowledge these elements – despite PR crises such as the story about a 14-year-old McDonald’s burger that had not rotted received huge coverage in 2013, and a local meat supplier in China found guilty of using expired and contaminated chicken and beef.

Consumer thinking has also evolved, and being more knowledgeable and cautious than previously, consumers are open to, and often actively seeking out relevant product information, that they then apply to their purchasing decisions.  Younger consumers especially – an important swathe of McDonald’s clientele – have large corporations’ activities on their radar, and are quick to sit in judgement of what they deem to be non-transparent or unethical practices.  According to some analysts, McDonald's just isn’t resonating with this consumer group, and this is likely to be a contributing factor.

The brand took “decisive action to change fundamentally the way we approach our business,” according to spokeswoman Heidi Barker, and initiated “Experience of the Future” that includes smartphone app and trialling mobile-payment systems such as Apple Pay, Softcard and Google Wallet.  Clearly the brand with these and its other Facebook plans, is making efforts to better engage with consumers.  This should open up consumer communications, but these are still predominantly channel strategies so the fundamental issues around the product still remain.

The challenge to McDonald’s is to continue doing what it does well, only better, and in keeping with a

changing consumer culture.  But it instead seems to be ‘pick and mixing’ competitors’ strategies and testing the ‘fast casual’ concept and the ‘upsell’, at the expense of its unique point of difference.  Given that the combined sales of American fast-casual outlets rose by 10.5% last year, compared with 6.1% for fast-food chains, according to Mintel, the attraction is understandable, but McDonald's is the brand that wrote the book on fast food and it should be the one to write the sequel not its competitors. 

It is ironic when you consider that the term McDonaldization describes society adapting to the McDonald’s ‘way’ ie fast, efficient, standardized etc.  The term’s creator, American sociologist George Ritzer, attributes McDonald’s success to be about creating a want or need and then satisfying it as opposed to listening to consumers and meeting the needs that they articulate.  Paradoxically though, in today’s consumer climate, listening to consumers is a critical contributor to brand success, so the McDonald’s brand needs to reconcile this.

McDonald’s has faced many negative and problematic issues in the last 12 months, earning the title of “whipping boy” by one journalist.  So declining sales is not entirely surprising. Its stature and size means that it will always be heavily scrutinised by the consuming public and stakeholders, and that there is an expectation that it behaves in a scrupulously responsible manner and ‘gives back’ rather than just ‘taking’ ie selling.

The "Choosin Lovin" strapline's intent is to re-capture and ignite brand love in consumers, but it'll take more than words to really connect with today's consumers.  It's the sentiment behind the words that the brand will have to bring to life.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21638120-why-slightly-more-upmarket-outlets-are-eating-fast-foods-lunch-better-burgers-choicer-chicken  

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21638115-after-long-run-success-worlds-largest-fast-food-chain-flounderingand-activist?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/when_the_chips_are_down

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/d8ea4e6e-da79-11e3-a448-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3PH76TaEl http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-ceo-on-company-strategy-2014-8?IR=T

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdavis/2014/11/13/mcdilemma-why-mcdonalds-needs-a-relentless-relevance-strategy/
http://www.nielseninsights.eu/articles/almost-two-thirds-of-irish-consumers-would-buy-more-private-label

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/food-and-drink/95-of-consumers-want-to-know-food-s-country-of-origin-1.2004720

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT PORN (and with the kids)

The first part of RTE’s documentary “We Need To Talk About Porn” (RTE "We Need To Talk About Porn") set the scene and is an important step towards lifting the lid on the Pandora’s Box that is pornography, and instigating the much needed discussion on porn and its impact on society.  There can be little doubt that porn can be damaging to participants and consumers, but where the real danger lies is with our children and young people.

The documentary’s research found that 69% of Irish adults have been exposed to porn, but the equivalent facts for children (UNICEF Change the Future A5 Report - Sexual Health Behaviour) make grim reading: 

• 78% of sixteen year old males and 40% females ad watched pornography online
• 21% of teen boys find out about sex via porn
• 1 in 5 saw porn as a source of information about sex (37% males and 11% females

One contributor on RTE’s documentary said that 11 years is when boys first access porn, and Unicef Ireland’s data is that 19% of boys lose their virginity between the ages of 13 and 15... so that means a worrying 2-5 years of watching 'learning' about sex from porn

Teen boys’ interest in porn is arguably a ubiquitous part of growing up.  But where it differs these days, is that whilst previous generations would have found it difficult to find hard core porn, now it’s not only easy to access but it’s free as well.  This point is made and explored in the documentary “Is Childhood Shrinking?” (Newstalk Documentary "Is Childhood Shrinking?") which investigated how and why Irish children are growing up faster than previous generations, and named the pressures on today’s children.  In particular, the pressure on teens to behave more adult like and to present themselves in a particular way featured strongly in the documentary, and this included the consequential impacts of porn and the constant proliferation of an often sexualised image and message in today’s advertising, music videos and social media:-

“The heightened sexual nature of the modern age infiltrates everything… there’s a fine line between music videos and porn”… or as Kian Egan pointed out “Sex Sells” and Wreaking Ball’s 609 MILLION views in 7 months, and Blurred Lines’ 301 million views proves the point.

Both research and the professionals cited in the programme were unanimous in their viewpoint that constant exposure to sexualised images normalises it.  So if on one hand we have the omnipresence of sexualised imagery in everything around us, and on the other easy, 24/7, free access to porn… what’s the overall effect?

“Porn on The Brain” (Channel 4."Porn On The Brain") was a Channel 4 documentary on the subject and it found a similar brain response to porn cues, as in nicotine or drug addicts.  So porn has a definitively profound effect on the brain and on behaviour.  And presenter Martin Daubney – who incidentally published the infamous lads’ mag Loaded so by his own admission is no stranger to porn and sexualised content -  argued that teen’s free access to online porn was like free access to nicotine.

Youth gives a significant added dimension to the impact of porn, as the regulator part of brain ie the questioning part, doesn’t kick in till after teenagedom.  So porn’s effect on the brain is “all accelerator and no brakes”, fuelled further by teen’s age-typical appetite for instant gratification and risk taking.

But critically, how porn plays on the vulnerability of youth, is that for many teens their first introduction to sex is porn, but without any filters, censure or informed discussion (less than a third of Irish teens find out about sex from their parents).

And as RTE’s documentary showed, and as Martin Daubney put it in “Porn On The Brain”, something has changed with porn.  Now it’s all about male domination and female humiliation, “[the internet is a] rolling buffet of online depravity” that to unwitting teens who take their sexual cues from porn, misrepresents what is typical and traumatises a generation of teens who are introduced to sex via such sites.

With the nature of hard core porn one wonders if porn is actually exploiting the more open notion of sexuality that currently exists, and taking it to a fantastical and far-removed from reality extreme?

In 2013 David Cameron was accused of creating a "moral panic" about young people's access to and consumption of porn.  Yet UK research amongst teens found that:

• 1/5 boys depend on porn as stimulant for real sex (University of East London)
• 23% have trouble controlling their porn habits (University of East London)
• And 10% of girls and 13% of boys said what watching is becoming more and more extreme (University of East London)

I suspect there’ll be similar comments following RTE’s piece.  But how much ‘evidence-based’ research and how many professionals have to speak out before modern society looks itself in the mirror and says with integrity and conviction ’enough is enough’?

The broader issue that all of these documentaries about porn and the sexualisation of childhood throw up, is how and where do (should) our kids find out about sex.  Invariably it’s not at home and school sex education isn’t up to much?  But if it’s online or via friends then today’s teens are in fact cobbling together a skuued version of what sex is, what is expected of them, and what they can expect of their sexual partners.

I don’t want my kids growing up in a society where 1 in 4 young people in Ireland has texted sexual or naked pictures of themselves (Internet Safety for Schools Ireland) to stave off sex they’re not ready for (as explained by Colman Noctor in “Is Childhood Shrinking?”)

I don't want to live in a society where there's pressure to lower the age of consent (as mentioned but also countered by then Minister for Children & Youth Affairs Frances Fitzgerald in “Is Childhood Shrinking?”). 

The critical point here is that today’s kids’ have virtually uncensored and un-policed access to the adult world, warts and all, and this impacts on childhood as the child tries to make sense of the world and their place in it.

There’s no silver bullet.  Controlling/changing to any large extent the environment in which childhood exists is not possible or perhaps anthropologically desirable, but we can still and need to, support and encourage our children to have a positive sense of self, and be more resilient to better manage the risks and issues they face.. and this includes sex and porn. 

As adults we need to have the courage to keep ourselves informed rather than shy away from difficult issues and conversations

And society needs to discuss childhood more, and to be more cognisant of our collective responsibility to making it as positive as possible for our children. 

As more programmes are broadcast on the subject, progressive and unhindered discussion should inevitably follow.  And this, along with a hard look at education, I think are good starting points.