In the CVS drugstore circular on August 1, the company promised to give customers who signed up for their email list a $4 coupon:

The unreadable fine print in the reduced size picture above only refers to the company’s privacy policy, and that people already on their list are not eligible.

Seemed like an easy way to save $4 to Linda D., a regular Mouse Print* reader. So she signed up at their website. She  filled out her name and email address on the page that contained this description (actual size):

So far, so good. Then she got an email from CVS with her coupon:

Excuse me, $4 off a $20 purchase? Where did that come from? There was no mention whatsoever about this coupon requiring a minimum purchase in the circular. Even visiting the CVS website on the page where you fill in your name and email address, there was no disclosure right on that page either [since changed as noted below].  If you were to click to see the sample coupon, you would have seen the $20 minimum purchase requirement, but few would probably have a reason to view the sample coupon.

Most people would only find out they’ve been hoodwinked after they had given CVS their personal information.

Mouse Print* contacted the PR folks at CVS to ask if they didn’t think this promotion was deceptive, and whether they would now provide people who signed up with a no-strings-attached $4 off coupon. They responded, in part:

“On the sign-up page, a sample coupon was displayed setting forth the details of the offer.

While we feel the information was available, CVS/pharmacy appreciates customer feedback and moving forward, we have enhanced the language for this ad to indicate more clearly that this is an offer for a $4 off $20 coupon. This change has already been made online at www.cvs.com/email. We have also made this change to our circular and it will be reflected on the online circular beginning on 8/22 and due to printing lead times, the new ad will begin running in the printed circular the week of 9/5.”

So, basically CVS decided against doing the honorable thing right away — offering those who signed up based on the misleading ad a no-strings-attached $4 coupon. And notice that they made no mention of running a retraction in newspapers across the country, as might be required by various state advertising laws.

We’ve got two stories this week, submitted by readers, all complaining about deceptive July 4th sales.

Story #1:

One of the most common forms of retail advertising is to promote a storewide sale on “everything.” Rarely is everything really on sale, but retailers still insist on using the word “everything.”

CVS Pharmacy is no exception. Just in time for July 4th, they sent out a mass email with the subject line: “4th of July Sale- 20% off EVERYTHING! 3 Days Only on CVS.com .” No exceptions, no exclusions, no asterisks. However, when you open the email, you see the graphic above with the small asterisk after “everything.”

The asterisk inevitably leads to a long list of exclusions.

*MOUSE PRINT:

*Offer available online only. Expires 6/30/10 at 11:59 PM EDT. To receive the 20% off sitewide discount enter coupon code JULY20 at check out. These products are not discounted: AeroGarden, Align, Alli, Acra Hair Removal Device, As Seen on TV products, Beauty 360 products, Belli, Better Body Solutions, Bodi Rocker, Burts Bees, Conair Infinity, Epilady, GHT, GoWear, Hormel, Ionic Pro, Jitterbug, Kelemata, Kidco, LaneLabs, LaRoche-Posay, Lierac, LipFusion, Maxoderm, Medela, Medical Nutrition Products, Olay Pro X, Omnilux, OXO, Philips Heartstart Home Defibrillator, Rapidlash, Resperate, Rock Hard Weekend, Sinupulse, Skin Doctors, Vector Hair Removal System, Vichy/Dermablend, Violight, Zanfel, Zeno. The 20% sale cannot be combined with another product sale running at the same time. You will receive the larger discount. The 20% sale excludes prescriptions and gift cards.

Thanks to Richard A. for the submission.

Story #2:

PetSmart sent out an email telling shoppers they could save up to $15 with coupons this weekend, both online and at their stores.

Here’s a part of their email:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Offer valid through July 4, 2010 at 6am ET

Nothing like having to get up early on a holiday morning — before 3am West coast time, and before 6am East coast time to use the coupon online before it expires. And the 6am time was not a typo, because trying to use it at 9am resulted in this error message:

Incidentally, their brick and mortar coupons were good all day at the store because they did not have a time of day expiration.

Thanks to Kelsey P. for the submission.

[See update at end of this post.] When P&G started advertising several months ago that it would give $1 to wildlife conservation organizations for every bottle of Dawn dishwashing liquid, little did they know the relevance that ad would have today. Pictures like this on the evening news have to disturb everyone:

With images like this, no wonder P&G seems to have stepped up its advertising of Dawn and its wildlife connection. (Dawn is often said to be used to remove oily slicks from birds.) Here is the full-page ad that appeared in the June 6, 2010 issue of Parade magazine:

If you didn’t read the fine print, you might have assumed that P&G was giving one dollar to these causes for every bottle of Dawn sold.

*MOUSE PRINT:

*Up to $500,000. Must visit dawnsaveswildlife.com to activate donation.

It is not unusual for these charitable promotions to have a cap, but it is more novel to require the purchaser to register their bottle of dishwashing liquid online to trigger the actual donation. (Each bottle has a unique code number.)

When one visits the referenced website, however, you learn that the contribution cap has already been reached.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“Dawn has reached its goal! Thanks to thousands and thousands of Everyday Wildlife Champions like you, Dawn has successfully reached its $500,000 donation goal to the MMC and IBRRC wildlife conservation organizations—and far ahead of schedule.”

While the Parade ad was certainly placed in advance, that doesn’t excuse P&G from continuing to air television commercials (as it did this past weekend) or if it takes out additional ads promoting the $1 donation, which has already ended.  By continuing to advertise that P&G is going to give a dollar to these wildlife efforts, the company will be encouraging people to go out and buy Dawn under the false impression that that small act will result in more money going to save these poor birds when in fact it won’t.

July 2, 2010 UPDATE:

P&G contacted Mouse Print* on July first to indicate that a website glitch last month made it appear that it had already reached its goal of donating $500,000. The company said that not only was the goal not reached, but that it is extending the promotion until mid-2011, and doubling the maximum amount it will contribute. Here is their statement:

“There was a small glitch with our website that falsely announced that we had reached our goal last month. That was quickly fixed and consumers were able to activate their donations shortly afterwards. In fact, Dawn has been so inspired by the passion of the Everyday Wildlife Champions that we’ve decided to extend the program until July 2011 and increase our donation goal to $1,000,000.”

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.

The big three hamburger chains are battling for your buck by offering double cheeseburgers for only 99 cents or a dollar. The ads for these burgers make them look so large and enticing, but the reality is starkly different.

Here are pictures of the promised burgers followed by what MrConsumer was actually served.

Burger King double cheeseburger:

McDonald’s McDouble (ordered without the one piece of cheese):

Wendy’s Double Stack (ordered without the one piece of cheese):

All the burgers that were delivered looked like miniature sandwiches for children. None was really overflowing with meat as the photographs depicted, but the Wendy’s burger came the closest. It appears that fast food restaurants are taking an unreasonable amount of liberty in depicting the size of their burgers.

So how much beef is really in each of these sandwiches? Surprisingly, you can’t find out on the fast food restaurants’ websites except for Burger King, nor is it even listed in their nutritional information.

The PR or customer service folks at the three companies provided the hidden information.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The ugliest burger delivered — the one from Burger King — turned out to have the most beef, and frankly was the tastiest by far.