There are laws which protect consumers from false advertising, although there's a fine line between "fact" and "opinion," which allows a certain amount of fudging on all sides. Is auto X REALLY the best? Maybe you think so, maybe I don't -- but the "best mileage" -- that's something that can be quantified. (Except for the disclaimer, in 2-point type: Your mileage may vary.)
However, these rules seem only to apply to WORDS -- the advertising copy -- not the visuals that go along with it. Have you EVER gone to a fast-food restaurant and received a product that looks exactly like what's shown on TV? Probably not; yet advertisers get away with promoting such perfect products as "actual," and we consumers don't grumble when we receive a roast beef sandwich which isn't plump, over-stuffed, and 3" tall. (Does someone in the back room flatten them with a rolling pin?) Maybe we SHOULD grumble, especially now, when everyone is clamoring for our business; maybe we'd get more for our money.
Some rules about picturing food products have been established. Since shooting a commercial takes quite a bit of time under hot lights, and most food is very perishable, advertisers would substitute "similar" items for the food products. For example, that "scoop of vanilla ice cream" might've actually been a scoop of lard; the "fudge brownie" could have been a dark-brown sponge. To make a soup look more "chunky," clear marbles were often placed beneath the vegetables. Some of these practices are now illegal.
Talking about "truth in advertising" -- what about those "phone slut" businesses? Do men REALLY believe those hot chicks are just waiting to talk to them on the phone? Doesn't it ever occur to them that such babes are out having fun with handsome and/or rich men? Evidently, men are fooled -- because those inane commercials keep running, and TV air time -- even after midnight, when most of these spots run (thank goodness) -- costs.
For both industries, I'd like to see disclaimers: Acutal products not exactly as pictured. ;)
MUTE BUTTON ALERT! The singing fish that's missing its fillets. (Shudder.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fudging? In advertising such language is called ''Weasel Words''. 'New', 'Better', 'Improved', etc. Words without quantifiable worth.
ReplyDeleteAs far as visuals go, here's my story. Many years ago (decades actually) I saw a TV ad about Arby's Roast Beef Sandwiches. You've seen them. The sandwich shows the beef piled at least 2 inches thick.
So I show up at an Arby's and order one of these thick, monstrous sandwiches. What I was served was a bun with a smidgen of beef - the tiniest of wads - completely hidden by the bun surrounding it. I complained and said, ''I want that sandwich'' while I pointed to the picture with the 2 inches of beef piled high in between the, seemingly small by comparison, bun. I was told that that was just the advertising photo and that the beef gets ''compressed'' when making the sandwich. I asked for, and received, my money back and never went to an Arby's again.