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.

Consumer sites, including this one, tend to point out a lot more negative than the positive issues about companies and their practices. This, however, is a story of extraordinary customer service that deserves to be publicly acknowledged.

MrConsumer (aka Edgar, the editor of Mouse Print*) recently needed to replace his 23-year old gas range, fondly nicknamed the “Price is Right stove” because of its one-piece design consisting of a range, oven, and microwave popularized decades ago by that game show. After perusing the ads, he narrowed down the choices to a Sears Kenmore slide-in gas range advertised for about $1000 the last week in December in  the Sears circular.

After calling four stores, MrConsumer finally found a local Sears that stocked the particular stove so he could look at it. It was very important that the range be stainless steel and have a professional look. As it turned out, the store did not have the advertised stove on display, but rather a similar but higher model. To confirm that the advertised stove was identical in appearance to the one in the store, the salesman took MrConsumer to a computer terminal to look at it online. The picture showed that it had stainless steel knobs, a computer control panel with a 0-9 digital keypad, and matte finish grates just like the similar model in the store.  Assured of these specifications, the order was placed for this range:

At this point you might be able to guess what happened next when the stove was delivered on January 25.  The grates were shiny black, making them look cheesy and not very professional.  The electronic controls only had an up/down arrow to change the temperature in five degree increments.  So, if you wanted to go from 300 to 400 degrees, you would have to press the up arrow 20 times.  MrConsumer was very not happy, but since the electrician and plumber were already scheduled, the stove was installed the next day.

Complaining to Sears’ 800 number resulted in a very quick callback from the store manager.  While willing to compensate MrConsumer for having received a lesser digital control panel, she was not so willing to try to obtain the matte finish grates shown both in the store and online.  In part, she pointed to the fine print on the website:

*MOUSE PRINT:

In MrConsumer’s defense, this description was not shown to him in the store, and is not even visible on the same page where the stove is described online. (One has to click a link  “more specifications” to find this. You will also notice it says the knobs are black, when in fact they are stainless.)  Further, this description is contrary to the more prominent magnified picture at the top of the page that clearly showed matte grates, and the accompanying description that said “ professional-look heavy duty cast-iron grates are completely dishwasher-safe.”

Not willing to take “no” for an answer from the local store, MrConsumer sent a factual and polite email to two highly placed executives responsible for major appliances at Sears headquarters. [See the first comment below for the trick to finding such executives.]  He asked for a price adjustment because of the lesser digital display, and requested that Sears provide the matte finish grates as was represented.  

One of the executives actually responded the day after mailing, on a Sunday no less, saying that this was not the type of experience (being shown one thing, and receiving another) that their customers should have to go through.  Within a few days, a person from “executive resolutions” called, acknowledging the wrong stove was pictured on the website.  Remarkably, they offered to replace the stove with the one pictured (a more expensive model by about $250) at no cost, and to even cover the costs of having their plumber do the installation.

Wow. Is that not remarkable customer service, above and beyond expectations?  It almost feels like the clock was turned back several decades when stores really did care about satisfying their customers.  Hats off to Sears for showing that a big company can acknowledge a mistake and bend over backwards to remedy the situation.

(Despite the seeming fairy tale ending to this story, there will be a part two, as MrConsumer’s kitchen is now home to two Sears ranges.  Ironically, in part, it is because more fine print tripped up the company’s best of  intentions.)