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!

How Blind Should Trust Be?

What struck me most about the Murdoch inquisition was the ebb and flow, not of conversation but of trust, within News International and News Corporation.

Of course that should be a necessary and reciprocal part of any business, but that’s only really possible when accompanied with information. And whilst trust may have been given and received freely within the organisation, information clearly wasn’t.

So is it appropriate for senior management to have blind trust in its employees?

Much of an organisation’s culture and value system comes from the top. It’s the heads that set the company’s moral compass and dictate what is and is not acceptable and expected behaviour. Leaders can only really lead effectively by example. And if their practice is to give blind trust then this will filter down the organisation and arguably focus line management on the output, and not necessarily the methodologies involved, or their associated ethical implications.

I guess it’s more myopic trust really, but it’s certainly a facet of many businesses’ management ethos and is one that is damaging, and in the current climate intolerable and unsustainable.

The basis of trust is information. And its dissemination should be shaped by ethically-sound codes of practice, which are shared, embedded and policed. Such codes should articulate the acceptable behaviours staff can employ to meet the business objectives. Enshrining the company’s stated values and ethics in codes and guidelines, sets the moral standard throughout the business.

But trust and information also need opportunity. Staff must have ample opportunity to discuss and raise issues regarding trust and ethics as a course of day-to-day business. The organisational culture must accommodate and encourage this if a truly trustworthy and trusted company is desired.

I’m not sure I believe blind trust really exists in the business environment. Wilful blindness on the other hand is a topic I’ve blogged about before http://ethicsandmarketing.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html.

So I guess for me the bottom line is if you think you’ve got an issue, trust your instincts and test your ethics.

“Purpose” a purchase trigger and CSR still a focus – according to latest research

Cause related marketing is dead, long live Responsible RoI…

OK this isn’t quite true, but two interesting pieces of research allude to this as a possible new state of marketing affairs (and are also testament to what I’ve been saying for some time now):

According to The Global Edelman Goodpurpose Study http://www.goodpurposecommunity.com/ just released, more than half of consumers have more trust in a brand that is ethically and socially responsible. And crucially, 57% believe brands need to integrate good causes into their day-to-day business, with 90% of consumers feeling that brands needed to do more than just give money to charities and should consider society's interests as much as the business'.

Juxtapose these findings with global consulting and research company BSR’s http://www.bsr.com/ - which found that business leaders are still focused on sustainability and increasingly on social issues, despite the recession – and my suggestion of new marketing order is justified.

I could of course bore you with countless academic studies that further endorse both sets of findings, but as I keep saying in these blogs, actions speak louder than words. So instead I suggest you acknowledge what is fast becoming good business practice in terms of engaging corporate citizenship, and examine how this might apply to your brand.

If the current economic climate has not dampened global business leaders’ consideration of sustainable and CSR-related issues, then there must be some similar resonance or at least reason, with all commercial enterprise, regardless of size. Because what both reports illustrate is that the consumer and the public view have shifted significantly over the last few years. This is more a consumer-driven shift than a recessionary one, with the facilitating catalyst being the internet.

The domino effect of new consumer attitudes and rising social issues, has led to new consumer behaviour and therefore an alternative marketing paradigm, that’s worth serious consideration. Because, to quote a UK businessman, “if you see a bandwagon, you’re too late”