Year: 2012

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Pom (Not So) Wonderful Fights Back

The Federal Trade Commission recently sued the maker of Pom Wonderful pomegranate juice contending that it did not have reliable evidence to back up the health claims it made.

A federal administrative law judge two weeks ago ruled in favor of the FTC, issuing a cease and desist order against the company because it did not have sufficient evidence to support its claims that its juice reduced the risks of heart disease, prostate cancer and impotence. (Full decision)

Turning their defeat on its head, the company took out full page ads in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times like this:

Reading the advertisement, you’d think that the company won the lawsuit. What they did instead was cleverly excerpt out-of-context quotes from the judge that seemingly supported their case.

Look at the first claim in the advertisement above, where the company quotes the judge as saying that scientific studies support the claim that pomegranate juice supports prostate health including by slowing the rate of increase in a man’s PSA level. What they failed to tell you was the following, that the judge said immediately after that.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“However, the greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony shows that the evidence relied upon by Respondents is not adequate to substantiate claims that the POM Products treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of prostate cancer or that they are clinically proven to do so. Indeed, the authors of the Pantuck Study and the Carducci Study each testified that their study did not conclude that POM Juice treats, prevents, or reduces the risk of prostate cancer. And, as Respondents’ expert conceded, no clinical studies, research and/or trials show definitively that the POM Products treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of prostate cancer.” — Judge D. Michael Chappell, page 282.

Looking at the company’s third claim in the ad above about promoting erectile health, the company conveniently omitted the judge’s conclusion in the very next sentence:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“There is insufficient competent and reliable scientific evidence to show that pomegranate juice prevents or reduces the risk of erectile dysfunction or has been clinically proven to do so.” – page 188

What chutzpah this company has. It will be interesting to see if the FTC goes after Pom for the deceptive nature of these misleading ads.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Sign Up for Comcast, Get $500?

While surfing around the Internet last week, MrConsumer came upon this banner ad from Comcast advertising up to a $500 Visa card if one signs up for their Xfinity service. (The ad appeared on a world time website, rather than a local website with a local target audience.)

When clicking the ad, you are taken to a Comcast page with this list of offers:

*MOUSE PRINT: (click graphic below for a larger version)

The only offers shown are for plans that provide Visa cards from $100 to $300. Where is the advertised $500 card? We asked Comcast to explain this discrepancy that looks an awful lot like a bait and switch scheme.

“[W]e did indeed have a limited-time online promotion, which offered up to a $500 Visa prepaid card. It was a geo-targeted campaign aimed at consumers in select markets.” – Peter Dobrow, Comcast Corporate Communications

I’m sorry, that doesn’t cut it. Advertisers can tell from your IP address roughly where you live, and can target ads accordingly on the fly. An offer for $500 back meant for one locale should never appear on a national website if the offer is not available to those who view it.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Here We Downsize Again – Part 1 (2012)

In the never ending cycle of products periodically shrinking inconspicuously in size rather than directly going up in price, we found some doozies.

Paper towels often are downsized, and Bounty is no exception:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Bounty Select-a-Size went from 121 sheets on a roll down to 111. But, the new package seems to say that you are getting 33% more sheets. How in the world is that possible?

*MOUSE PRINT:

The fine print says the comparison is not with the prior version of this product as you would expect, but rather with a “regular” roll, whatever that size really is. If you think about, it is outrageous that P&G would put a 33% more sheets claim on a package that was actually just downsized in the number of sheets.

Last fall, peanut butter prices went through the roof. What got less publicity was the fact that nuts themselves went up in price too. In the case of Planters nuts, consumers experienced both a direct price increase as well as a downsizing.

*MOUSE PRINT:

As always, manufacturers never call your attention to the fact that they have downsized the product, so you have to become net-weight-conscious in order to catch them playing this sneaky game.