Selecciones - Webs

732
Part Seven Special Topics and Perspectives
Belch: Advertising and
Promotion, Sixth Edition
VII. Special Topics and
Perspectives
Figure 21-5 Examples of corrective advertising messages
Profile Bread
“Hi, [celebrity’s name] for Profile
Bread. Like all mothers, I’m
concerned about nutrition and
balanced meals. So, I’d like to clear
up any misunderstanding you may
have about Profile Bread from its
advertising or even its name.
“Does Profile have fewer calories
than any other breads? No. Profile
has about the same per ounce as
other breads. To be exact, Profile
has seven fewer calories per slice.
That’s because Profile is sliced
thinner. But eating Profile will not
cause you to lose weight. A
reduction of seven calories is
insignificant. It’s total calories and
balanced nutrition that count. And
Profile can help you achieve a
balanced meal because it provides
protein and B vitamins as well as
other nutrients.
“How does my family feel about
Profile? Well, my husband likes
Profile toast, the children love
Profile sandwiches, and I prefer
Profile to any other bread. So you
see, at our house, delicious taste
makes Profile a family affair.”
(To be run in 25 percent of
brand’s advertising, for one year.)
21. Regulation of
Advertising and Promotion
© The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2003
fewer ingredients than actually existed!) While Campbell Soup agreed to stop the
practice, a group of law students calling themselves SOUP (Students Opposed to
Unfair Practices) argued to the FTC that this would not remedy false impressions created
by prior advertising and contended Campbell Soup should be required to run
advertising to rectify the problem. 53
Although the FTC did not order corrective advertising in the Campbell case, it has
done so in many cases since then. Profile Bread ran an ad stating each slice contained
fewer calories than other brands—but the ad did not mention that slices of Profile
bread were thinner than those of other brands. Ocean Spray cranberry juice was found
guilty of deceptive advertising because it claimed to have more “food energy” than
orange or tomato juice but failed to note it was referring to the technical definition of
food energy, which is calories. In each case, the advertisers were ordered to spend 25
percent of their annual media budgets to run corrective ads. The STP Corporation was
required to run corrective advertising for claims regarding the ability of its oil additive
to reduce oil consumption. Many of the corrective ads run in the STP case appeared in
business publications to serve notice to other advertisers that the FTC was enforcing
the corrective advertising program. The texts of the corrective messages required in
each of these cases are shown in Figure 21-5.
Corrective advertising is probably the most controversial of all the FTC programs.
54 Advertisers argue that corrective advertising infringes on First Amendment
rights of freedom of speech. In one of the most publicized corrective advertising cases
Ocean Spray
“If you’ve wondered what some of
our earlier advertising meant when
we said Ocean Spray Cranberry
Juice Cocktail has more food
energy than orange juice or
tomato juice, let us make it clear:
we didn’t mean vitamins and
minerals. Food energy means
calories. Nothing more.
“Food energy is important at
breakfast since many of us may not
get enough calories, or food
energy, to get off to a good start.
Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice
Cocktail helps because it contains
more food energy than most other
breakfast drinks.
“And Ocean Spray Cranberry
Juice Cocktail gives you and your
family Vitamin C plus a great
wake-up taste. It’s . . . the other
breakfast drink.”
(To be run in one of every four
ads for one year.)
STP
As a result of an investigation by
the Federal Trade Commission into
certain allegedly inaccurate past
advertisements for STP’s oil
additive, STP Corporation has
agreed to a $700,000 settlement.
With regard to that settlement, STP
is making the following statement:
“It is the policy of STP to support
its advertising with objective
information and test data. In 1974
and 1975 an independent
laboratory ran tests of the
company’s oil additive which led to
claims of reduced oil consumption.
However, these tests cannot be
relied on to support the oil
consumption reduction claim made
by STP.
“The FTC has taken the position
that, in making the claim, the
company violated the terms of a
consent order. When STP learned
that the test did not support the
claim, it stopped advertising
containing that claim. New tests
have been undertaken to
determine the extent to which the
oil additive affects oil consumption.
Agreement to this settlement does
not constitute an admission by STP
that the law has been violated.
Rather, STP has agreed to resolve
the dispute with the FTC to avoid
protracted and prohibitively
expensive litigation.”