An advertisement’s only purpose is to make the potential consumer buy it’s product. As we know some advertising used exaggerated, this kind of advertising not only give an impressive to the audience and consumer. But also, for the clients, used the rhetoric in advertisement can improving the product sales. However, sometimes will turn out to be a clumsy sleight of hand.
e.g. Citroën pokes fun at genocidal dictator, apologizes to protect itself
Print advertisement from Citroën advertising the C4 in Spain. The advertisement was withdrawn after complaints from Chinese who couldn’t take a joke about the Communist leader.On the other hand, deception is a type of exaggeration. Advertisers have formulated cunning ways to confuse the potential consumer into seeing or hearing things that are not evident. This advertiser’s are so cunning, that their false tactics are not considered lies; and are not legally deemed as false advertisement.
Deception, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification, and subterfuge are acts to propagate beliefs that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda, sleight of hand. It can employ distraction, camouflage or concealment. There is also self-deception.
I would like to take two examples for the puffery advertising.
A)
it is a Anti-aging cosmetics advertisement, I think it is an exaggerated advertisement. But it more seems like puffery advertising. I just wondering why don’t laws restrict this kind of advertising.
b) Pasta Puffery(it is an exemplary puffery phrase)
Published October 14, 2004 - Ontario, Canada
A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeal for the 8th Circuit concluded that use of the statement “America’s Favourite Pasta” was not false or misleading advertising on the basis that the statement was simply commercial “puffery.”
American Italian Pasta Company sold pasta in association with the Mueller’s brand in the United States. The packaging for various sizes and types of dry pasta contained the statement “America’s Favourite Pasta.” New World Pasta Company claimed that use of the phrase violated the Lanham Act.
The Act provides that any person, who in connection with any goods, uses a false or misleading description of fact, or a false or misleading representation of fact, is liable in a civil action to any person who is damaged by such an act.
The Court stated that the Act applies to two categories of actionable statements:
. Literally false factual commercial claims, and
. Literally true or ambiguous factual claims which implicitly convey a false impression.
However, a category of a non-actionable statement exists which is popularly known as “puffery.” Puffery exists in two general forms:
. Exaggerated statements of bluster or boast upon which no reasonable consumer would rely, and
. Vague or highly subjective claims of product superiority, including bald assertions of superiority.
Typically, a factual claim can be judged as true or false by empirical verification. To be actionable, a statement must be a specific measurable claim, capable of being proved false or of being reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact.
Puffery and statements of fact are mutually exclusive. If a statement is a specific, measurable claim or can be reasonably interpreted as being a factual claim (i.e. capable of verification) the statement is one of fact. Conversely, if the statement is not specific and measurable and cannot be reasonably interpreted as providing a benchmark by which the veracity of the statement can be ascertained, the statement will be considered as puffery. By defining puffery in this fashion, advertisers are left with considerable leeway to craft their advertisements, allowing the free market to hold them accountable for their statements, which in turn ensures vigorous competition and protects legitimate commercial speech.
When these principles were applied, the Court concluded that the phrase “America’s Favourite Pasta” by itself was not a statement of fact. It was not a specific measurable claim and could not be reasonably interpreted as an objective fact. The phrase was subjective and vague.
In Canada, the Competition Act precludes the making of a “representation” that is false and misleading or a statement of product performance or efficacy that is not based on adequate and proper tests. This provision is broader than the U.S. legislation. Canadian cases have given effect to a puffery defence for exaggerated statements on which no reasonable consumer would rely. However, the same cannot be said for claims of product superiority. The result in a case involving “Canada’s Favourite Pasta” could be different unless the advertiser had the largest market share or other objective reasons to substantiate the claim.
This article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. ©John McKeown 2004
jun...
As a Chinese student, i have to say the Citroën ad really failed. First of all, i dont really understand what it is trying to communicate, about its speed or something that made Mao upset? It is hard to tell from the image itself. Secondly, this ad is displayed in Spain or China? Why Spain with the use of image of Chinese Leader? If it is in China, then obviously the designer did not have enough knowledge about the Chinese policy.
ReplyDeleteThe humor technique the designer tried to express doesnt work well in this ad.