Ad Nauseam : A Consumer Lobby Hands Out ‘Lemons’ for 1992 Advertising
Advertisers stooped to lamentable lows in 1992--misleading the public about everything from credit card fees to airline ticket prices--primarily because of lax government regulation.
That, at least, is the conclusion of the Washington-based consumer lobby Center for Science in the Public Interest, which on Wednesday handed out its annual “Lemon Awards” for what it called the most misleading, unfair and irresponsible advertising of 1992.
Among the recipients:
* Discover card was tossed a lemon for ads that claim it does not charge interest on cash advances--but then charges stiff transaction fees. (A Discover card spokeswoman said the company had no comment.)
* Ford Motor Co. took it on the chin for claiming “Quality is job one” in ads, even though some Ford F-Series trucks have serious paint defects. (A company spokesman acknowledged the paint problems and noted that Ford is notifying truck owners of the potential defects.)
* Trans World Airlines was named for advertising a $149 round-trip fare to Puerto Rico--and giving little mention to requirements for hotel stay or car rental. (A spokeswoman for TWA said the airline “does not have enough information on the complaint” to comment.)
* Philip Morris Co. was cited for its Marlboro Adventure Team ads, which the center said encourage children to send for free cigarettes. (A Philip Morris spokeswoman said the firm does not market to adolescents and does “all we can” to discourage kids from smoking.)
In a related action Wednesday, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other groups filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission seeking to force the withdrawal of the Marlboro ad campaign.
Although none of the “winners” showed up to receive the lemon-shaped statuettes, they must now contend with the public relations nightmare almost certain to follow such dubious achievements.
“You can’t just laugh off this kind of criticism,” New York ad man Jerry Della Femina said. “If I received one of these, I would take it very, very seriously. And if I found that the complaint was justified, I would change the ad immediately.”
Advertisers weren’t the only ones taken to task by the consumer group.
The FTC was awarded a special lemon for what the Center for Science said was a failure to enforce current ad guidelines.
The group called for new procedures for appointing FTC commissioners--including a proposal sent Wednesday to President-elect Bill Clinton to appoint new members from consumer groups.
“While advertisers are quick to think up new ways to dupe unsuspecting consumers,” said Bruce Silverglade, the center’s legal director, “the Federal Trade Commission moves about as fast as an arthritic turtle to stop deceptive claims.”
But FTC officials on Wednesday strongly disputed that assertion--saying that the lobby group’s latest action is basically an attempt during a change in administrations to get one of its own members appointed to the FTC.
“The business community will always say we’re doing too much, and consumer groups will always say we haven’t done enough,” said Barry Cutler, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Most advertisers who received the Lemon Awards on Wednesday strongly rejected the findings.
“What they’re saying may sound sexy, but there’s no credibility to it,” said an angry Howard Lichtman, executive vice president of marketing for Cineplex Odeon theaters, which was cited by the group for “bombarding audiences” with on-screen commercials.
Cineplex, which runs ads before films in 271 theaters, “is breaking down one of the last few barriers between advertising and entertainment,” said the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
“Our market research tells us that consumers have no issue with screen advertising,” Lichtman said. “And it’s not something that will make them stop going to movies.”
One ad was singled out by the center for what it called “new depths of deception.”
A TV spot for the nuclear industry-sponsored U.S. Council for Energy Awareness features a woman identified as an environmental engineer who says that she has changed her anti-nuclear views and now supports nuclear energy because “I want my kids . . . to breathe clean air.”
But the Center for Science points out something that the ad does not: The woman, Karen Strauss, is the granddaughter-in-law of Lewis Strauss, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.
“She’s only related distantly by marriage,” said Scott Peters, a spokesman for the Council for Energy Awareness. “They can twist it any way they want but, the fact is, nuclear energy does not produce air pollution because it doesn’t burn anything. That’s the truth.”
‘Worst’ Ads of the Year These ads have been selected as the “most misleading, unfair or irresponsible” ads of 1992 by the Washington-based consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Category: Financial services Advertiser: Discover card How ad is misleading: Claims no interest charged on cash transactions but charges stiff transaction fees. *Category: Energy Advertiser: Amoco Oil How ad is misleading: Promises improved acceleration even though claims are unproven. *Category: Food Advertiser: C.R. Eggs Inc. How ad is misleading: Claims eggs do not raise serum cholesterol levels. *Category: Tobacco Advertiser: Philip Morris How ad is misleading: Doesn’t discourage kids from ordering samples. *Category: Environment Advertiser: U.S. Council for Energy Awareness How ad is misleading: Misrepresents environmental impact of nuclear power *Category: Toys Advertiser: Toy Max Inc. How ad is misleading: Shows unsupervised children using “dangerous” toys. *Category: Cosmetics Advertiser: Lancome How ad is misleading: Claims Nisome+ cream can prevent skin wrinkles. *Category: Alcohol Advertiser: Beringer Winery How ad is misleading: Promotes health benefits of red wine. *Category: Automobiles Advertiser: Ford Motor Co. How ad is misleading: Claims “quality is job one,” although some F-Series trucks have serious paint defects. *Category: Airlines Advertiser: TWA How ad is misleading: Promotes cheap air fare but gives scant mention of required hotel stay or car rental.
