Since this edition of OZ features advertising judged to be among the “best of the best,” I thought I would devote this article to one of the key requirements of all advertising. I call it my First Rule of Advertising. Simply put, it is truthfulness.

Not only must ads and advertisers tell the truth, but they must tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is these latter requirements that cause the problems. In addressing the truthfulness of advertising, the two most important things to remember are “substantiation” and “net impression.”

Most advertising is composed of claims and promises. Generally, the claims are either of superiority to other products (i.e. more features, faster processing speed and so forth) or of parity with other products (i.e. no prices lower). The key is to identify all of the claims or promises in an ad, and then be absolutely sure that they are 100% provable. To make matters more interesting, claims or promises don’t just come in express form, sometimes they are implied. This is where the “net impression” comes in. What is the message or impact that a reasonable consumer would get from the advertising, taking the ad as presented. What claims or promises does this consumer think the ad makes? It is sometimes surprising to advertisers to learn what the viewing and listening audience sees or hears in an ad. Then there is the issue of footnotes or supers which are frequently used to ensure that claims stated are accurate, limited, or at least, better understood. When they are unreadable because of size or time on the screen, or unintelligible because they are described so fast, then they are unlikely to have any weight in forming the consumer’s “net impression.”

After all claims made in an ad have been identified, from a consumer’s
viewpoint, then it is incumbent to see that each claim is substantiated. This means that there has to be adequate proof for each of these claims or promises. The proof of each claim or promise must also be founded upon a reasonable basis, and that basis can be different for different types of claims. Claims for medical products, for example, must have substantiation which is based upon scientific, accepted protocol. If the only evidence in your file is that it worked for your Grandmother, the claim or promise is not substantiated. In addition, the evidence must be in-hand before the ad runs or is printed.

While the FTC is the government’s monitor for the truthfulness in advertising, because of their focus on the deceptive or unfair ad, it is competitors who frequently challenge the substantiation in advertising. A favorite challenge forum is the National Advertising Division of the Council or Better Business Bureaus, Inc. Three recent cases are good examples of how matters are addressed by NAD.

The first is an example of substantiation requirements. In October, P&G (who makes and sells Secret) challenged Unilever’s advertising for its Degree Ultra Clear Antiperspirant. The ad claims included: “Others go on clear, New Degree Clear stays that way; and Unless they’re using New Degree Ultra-Clear, those white marks may just show up later.” When the time came to substantiate the claims, the proof offered showed the application of both products on black cardboard left a white residue (although the Degree’s residue was less), which NAD found did not qualify the claims but completely contradicted them, and thus failed completely to substantiate the claims.

The next two cases addressed the focused on the ‘net impression” aspect of the advertising. The first involved a dispute by Bissell to a claim made by Electrolux for its carpet cleaning product. In its advertising, Electrolux claimed that its OptiHEAT product has “tanks designed to maintain the temperature of your water; and that OptiHEAT holds temperature loss to under 1 degree for up to 30 minutes.” At issue was whether the ads conveyed the message that OptiHEAT generates heat, increasing the temperature of the tap water the consumer puts into the unit (it does not). Electrolux pointed out that all of the ads clearly stated that the unit maintains and holds water temperature and does not say that it heats the water. But after reviewing the results of a consumer survey NAD concluded that, even though the advertising did not specifically state that the unit heated the water, the “net impression” of the consumer was that it did.

The second case involved Perdue Farms, Inc. and ads for its Perdue Farms Short Cuts poultry products. The objector to the ads was Kraft Foods Global, Inc. In the ads, Perdue claimed that the products were: “Fresh Fully Cooked; and contained no preservatives.” In examining the issues, NAD learned that the product was thoroughly cooked by Perdue, then two “flavoring agents” which are also well-known antimicrobial preservatives were added, the product was subjected to high-pressure processing and then sealed. It could remain on a supermarket shelf for 60 to 90 days before being purchased. After learning all this, NAD concluded that a consumer’s “net impression” of Fresh, Fully Cooked” did not encompass a product which could be up to 90 days old. And although Perdue claimed that the additives were flavoring agents, because they are well known agents used as preservatives, the consumer’s “net impression” was that the product was not free of preservatives.

So, when the creative juices are flowing, remember the questions: does the advertisement, in its net impression, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and do we have the proof in-hand? If the answer to either is no, CHANGE THE AD. Otherwise, the story is likely to be something like this:

A sharp marketing-type ingénue
Advertised a “perfect-pitch” golden kazoo
Bur her end was abrupt
And her company bankrupt
‘Cause nothing her ads claimed was true