Unless you have been asleep for the past month or two, you probably have seen the bright red Toyota commercial touting their commitment to safety:

It says:

“At Toyota, we care about your safety. That’s why we’re investing a million dollars every hour to improve our technology and your safety. It’s an investment that has helped Toyota win multiple top safety pick awards for 2010 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. No other brand has won more. These top safety picks and all our new safety innovations are available at Toyota.com/safety . “

The average TV watcher will likely take away the message that Toyota cares about safety, has won a lot of safety awards, and is spending a million dollars an hour to improve safety.

Mouse Print* asked the company how they arrived at the million dollars an hour figure.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“The $1 million figure represents Toyota’s total global spending on R&D to enhance the safety and technology of its vehicles. [Toyota] projects $760 billion yen [to be spent in FY2011] on R&D. Breaking down the calculations, 90 yen to the dollar equals $8.44 billion, which works out to $2,318,310 per day or $965,962 an hour, rounded to $1 million an hour. In any event, any fluctuations in the yen would impact the exact final figure.”

The key issue is not so much that they rounded up the figure to a million dollars an hour (exaggerating the amount spent by almost $30 million a year) but rather that the number is TOTAL spending on research and development, not just on safety issues. The company could not provide a number for the actual amount just spent on safety, but it certainly is less than the total spent on R&D, and therefore is not $1 million dollars an hour.

When this discrepancy and interpretation of the commercial was pointed out to Toyota, they responded:

“As the commercials mention, the $1 million figure represents Toyota’s R&D spending on new technology and safety, much of it allocated to quality and safety features.”

If you parse the key sentence in the commercial, it does indeed say that they are spending $1 million an hour to “improve our technology AND your safety.” But by using the term “safety” seven times in 30 seconds, and displaying the words “safety” or “safe” on the screen for much of the commercial, listeners are likely to get the net impression that Toyota is spending a million dollars an hour to “improve our technology FOR your safety.” We don’t think the average consumer would take away from the commercial that the company is spending some number less than a million dollars an hour on safety.

In Massachusetts, we have an advertising regulation that provides:

“An advertisement as a whole may be unfair or deceptive although each representation separately construed is literally true.”

Our story on P&G and their promotion promising to give $1 to wildlife causes for every bottle of Dawn sold has been updated, based on new information provided by the company.

See update here, at the end of the original story.

For a while last year, it seems like every cable and satellite provider was claiming to have the most HD programming. If they all claim to have more, someone’s not telling the truth.

Here is DirecTV’s “To Tell the Truth” commercial claiming to have more HD than Dish Network or cable.

But then you had Comcast claiming to have more HD than satellite:

Can you believe anyone? DirecTV challenged Comcast’s claims before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau, where the organization reviewed Comcast’s claims in TV commercials such as:

· “More HD”
· “Comcast has more HD than satellite. More HD than anyone.”
· “More HD choices”
· “More HD Options”
· “You might think DIRECTV has more HD than Comcast but you’re wrong!”

Here is part of NAD’s ruling.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“Following its review of the evidence, NAD determined that DIRECTV currently offers the most HD channels and Comcast, by combining its HD channels and HD On Demand library, currently offers the broadest selection of HD programming. NAD also determined that “claims like ‘More HD Choices’ or ‘More HD Options’ is a logical way to describe the combination of linear HD channels and HD content On Demand available to Comcast subscribers.” However, NAD also found that, depending on the context in which such claims appear, they could also be reasonably interpreted to mean “More HD channels” – as the challenger argued. NAD recommended that that the advertiser modify five separate commercials to avoid consumer confusion.”

The bottom line is that both companies confused the public as to the quantity of HD offerings they had. So if you are shopping for a new provider, look at the channel lineup of each company to see what is actually being offered in your area.

In an effort to make the most generous donation ever to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer fund, KFC is running a national advertising campaign called “Buckets for the Cure.” For every pink bucket of certain types of chicken, 50 cents will be donated to the cause. [The commercial, originally below, has been removed from YouTube.]

The clear impression created, at least to MrConsumer, is that for every bucket SOLD to CUSTOMERS, 50 cents will be donated. Go back and listen again. It just says “For every bucket,” leaving you to fill in the blank, most likely by adding “sold to customers” or “bought by customers”. But alas, there is fine print, the last line of which reads:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“Customer purchases of KFC buckets during the promotion will not directly increase the total contribution.”

Huh? The rest of the fine print explains that KFC store operators buy the pink buckets and that it is THEIR purchases of empty pink buckets that trigger THEIR giving 50 cents each to Susan G. Komen.

A spokesperson for KFC explained that donations are made at the time the individual restaurant operator purchases the pink buckets, and that since those are the only buckets that will be available to them during the promotion period, consumer purchases of pink buckets will actually but indirectly affect the total donation.

There is just one problem.  Some of the other fine print in the KFC commercial says:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“KFC restaurant operators have contributed 50 cents the Susan G. Komen for the Cure for Komen branded bucket purchased by the operators from April 5, 2010 – May 9, 2010.”

But, on the Susan G. Komen site, the expiration date of the offer for customers to order chicken in pink buckets is three weeks later.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“The pink buckets will be available through May 30, or while supplies last.”

KFC told Mouse Print* that it intends to continue to advertise this promotion after May 9 (until May 23), presumably still saying “together, we can make the largest donation in Komen history”. The problem is this as we see it: consumers could easily be misled into believing that their purchase during that period is increasing the amount of money going to the breast cancer fund when in fact it is not, either directly or indirectly. Remember, the actual donations will have ended on May 9. Not many TV watchers will catch the fine print disclaimer that would instruct them about that fact.

In regard to this, the KFC spokesperson said:

“The voice-over in the commercial states, ‘For every pink bucket of grilled or original recipe, KFC makes a 50 cent contribution to Susan B. Komen for the Cure.’ That is, of course, entirely true. And then, as you pointed out, the additional details are in the legal copy on the commercial and on the bucket.”

What KFC ignores is the concept of “net impression”. What is the net impression that consumers will take away from the commercial? As noted above, we suggest that most consumers are likely to believe their purchase will help the cause. Why else would KFC continue to advertise a charitable tie-in unless it too believed this will help spur consumer sales (and put KFC in a favorable light in customers’ minds)?

There is an advertising regulation in Massachusetts that says, “An advertisement as a whole may be unfair or deceptive although each representation separately construed is literally true.” That may well be the case in this instance.

When last we left this saga, MrConsumer had ordered a Sears gas range based on a picture on their website. The stove that was delivered, however, was not like the picture in several respects, including coming with glossy instead of matte finish grates. Executives at Sears, once contacted, bent over backwards to right the situation by agreeing to replace the stove with the pictured model at no extra cost.

For a period of five days, however, MrConsumer had two new Sears ranges in his kitchen because of coordination problems between the delivery and installation departments at Sears. Worse, the replacement stove also came with glossy grates.

This discrepancy was predictable because of mouse print on the Sears Parts Direct website which indicated the part number for the grates on both the original range and the replacement one were the same.

Undaunted, and with a little research by MrConsumer, the correct part number for the matte grates was discovered, and the folks at Sears headquarters ordered a set of matte finish grates. What arrived? Two sets! Why? Another error on their parts site made it appear the grates were being sold individually rather than in sets.

From the start, the Sears executive who wanted to right the situation and the person at “executive resolutions” who did the heavy lifting to make it happen, were determined to see this through to a successful conclusion. The correction cost Sears, in retail dollars, over $700 (higher priced replacement stove, delivery, installation, removal, and grates cost). That is an amazing amount of money to spend to satisfy one customer… and this customer is very grateful to them for the effort. Old fashioned customer service, at least in this instance, is a live and well and living at Sears.