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”.
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!
