Is KFC up to No Good, Again?

Back in 2004, KFC got into a jam with the FTC over claims that its chicken meals were healthier than Burger King Whoppers. That factual claim turned out to be a whopper of its own.

Now TMZ is reporting that a woman has sued KFC for $20 M because the $20 "Family Fill Up" bucket of chicken she bought looked nothing like the visual presentation of the product in the advertisements. In the advertisements, some of which are reproduced below, the meal includes an overflowing bucket of large chicken pieces. The unhappy customer quipped of her purchase:

“They say it feeds the whole family … They’re showing a bucket that’s overflowing with chicken.” . . . “You get half a bucket! That’s false advertising, and it doesn’t feed the whole family. They’re small pieces!”

At the time of publication of this post, no details about the form or make-up of the lawsuit were available.

Truth in Advertising: Still Lovin' It?

BuzzFeed has produced a video comparing the food pictured in McDonald's commercials to what the restaurant actually serves. Not surprisingly, there appears to be a substantial difference between what is advertised and what is delivered. Do the advertised images exceed the limits of expected "puffery" to be factually deceiving? That sounds like a discussion question for class.

More "Seeing is not Believing"

I guess I am like most people in that intellectually I realize that photographs and videos that we see in mass media campaigns or in entertainment media are altered to make the people look "better," or less flawed. Yet, emotionally, I am offended by this. I have previously written about enhanced visual marketing as being deceptive, perhaps unlawfully so. I have written about how the ease with which videos may now be edited calls into question the evidentiary value of any video evidence.  I imagine the same goes for photographic evidence.

This article provides another example of the ease with which images in a video can be altered to show us something other than what really existed.

Aren't there deleterious social effects? Isn't there a need for regulation, here?

A Gun in Every Toy Chest?

Children are precious. As a society, we employ law in diverse ways to protect children from any of a host of physical and emotional dangers.  It is hardly controversial that there are laws designed to protect kids from the obvious dangers of abuse and neglect. Kids also must be in car seats, wear helmets while riding bikes, and refrain from unhealthy eating at school.  Kids can't operate heavy machinery, make contracts or buy cough syrup.  Why, then, do we tolerate marketing directly to children? Issues have arisen in the past with direct marketing of food, cigarettes and cars among other products.  But the latest controversy involves direct marketing of guns to children in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings.

If law reflects our values, what conclusions should be drawn about how we value childhood vs. business profits? This direct marketing seeks to cash in on a demographic that is not experienced enough to make wise decisions. Further, these marketing programs define culture for children by creating phony "suggestions" of what life should include. The question that I find myself asking my students on an increasingly regular basis is, "Is this the best that we can do?"

Image source: NY Times

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Little White Lies

The British Advertising Standards Authority has taken action to ban a Christian Dior mascara ad featuring Natalie Portman.  The ad portrays results that cannot be achieved by use of the product. The agency ruling noted that Dior called the ad portrayal as "aspirational," admitting the lashes were re-touched after the photo shoot. In the US, the FDA and the FTC have periodically taken action against cosmetics advertisers. But in this case, no complaint has been made.The British regulatory action followed a complaint by a competitor. In the US, apparently, no one wants to "throw the first stone."



The Cover Girl ad featuring Taylor Swift, below, was pulled after the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureaus found it to be misleading. The Government didn't even have to get involved here.  Of course, the case was easily made since the ad's small print stated, "Lashes enhanced in post production."



Related posts on Deceptive Advertising: Activia ad, Ralph Lauren.

What Doesn't Kill You Makes You . . . Wish You Didn't Do It.

FDA regulations on prescription drug advertising requires that the potential risks from taking the drug be presented in balance with the potential benefits. An informed consumer can then make a rational decision whether or not to risk those "oily fecal discharges" as a tradeoff to curing some other malady.  See this related post.

Below are two ads for anti-depressants that have got to give one pause.

Does the Government Have a Sense of Humor?

An ad from British retailer Sofa King similar to the one below has been banned by the United Kingdom Advertising Standards Agency:






Where is the Ministry for the Protection of Cleverness when you need it?

Click HERE or on image below for Saturday Night Live skit:

Deceptive Advertising

Embedded below is the iconic "Morning in America" ad from President Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign.  The ad, often held up as an exemplar of positive campaign advertising, proclaims that America is "prouder, stronger, better," than it was prior to Reagan's election.  In the business realm, those terms would be referred to as "puffery."  But the ad also makes a number of factual statements; inflation is below a certain rate, so many couples will marry, so many people will buy homes, etc. Were these facts accurate? From the standpoint of the law, it doesn't matter.  As political speech, truth and falsity may be neither determined nor regulated by the government. What is "true" or not in the political realm will be sorted out in Justice Holmes' "marketplace of ideas." Or, by reference to factcheck.org.

In business, however, commercial speech enjoys no such latitude. False and/or deceptive advertising may be regulated, censored, banned, and may lead to penalties. Embedded below is an Activia ad that subjected Dannon to this complaint by the FTC resulting ultimately in a $21 million settlement. Writing that check probably helped relieve that "bloated feeling" in Dannon's bank account.

False and Deceptive Advertising?

In 2009, Ralph Lauren fired supermodel Filipa Hamilton claiming that at 5'10'' and 120 lbs, she was too overweight to represent the fashion line. Yet, Lauren continued to use her severly photoshopped image (below) where her waist appears to be about 10" around and her hips are smaller than her head.  Is it false and deceptive advertising to visually portray the human body in this severly altered state without a disclaimer?

Photoshopped image of Filipa Hamilton on right: