Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

(Not so) Free Chips Ahoy Cookies

Nabisco took out a full page in a recent Sunday coupon insert promoting a free package of Chips Ahoy cookies. What they were asking people to do was to visit their Facebook page, and there they could download a coupon for a free package of cookies.

That is not such an unusual offer. Last year, TGI Friday gave away free hamburgers if you became a fan of theirs on Facebook.

What’s different about this offer is buried in the fine print, and not even in that section of red words at the bottom of the ad.

*MOUSE PRINT:

So the offer is not really what the headline promises, nor even what the coupon at the bottom of the ad suggests in the larger print. The offer is really:

1. Buy a gallon of milk.
2. Buy a package of Nabisco cookies.
3. Become a fan of our cookies on Facebook.
4. Then and only then, get a free package of cookies.

The Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines on the use of the word “free” say:

“When making “Free” or similar offers all the terms, conditions and obligations upon which receipt and retention of the “Free” item are contingent should be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer so as to leave no reasonable probability that the terms of the offer might be misunderstood. Stated differently, all of the terms, conditions and obligations should appear in close conjunction with the offer of “Free” merchandise or service. For example, disclosure of the terms of the offer set forth in a footnote of an advertisement to which reference is made by an asterisk or other symbol placed next to the offer, is not regarded as making disclosure at the outset. ”

Will advertisers EVER learn to play it straight (and follow the rules) and not lead consumers to believe they are offering something for free with no additional purchase necessary, when in fact there are many strings?

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Campbell’s (Not) 25% Less Sodium Tomato Soup

As we become more health conscious, we tend to be attracted to products that are better for us. Unfortunately, manufacturers usually charge a premium price when a product offers health benefits compared to similar products.

Here, for example, is Campbell’s Tomato soup — the regular type and the 25% less sodium version. Their regular tomato soup is $1 a can, while the can with less salt is $1.39. A huge percentage price difference. Funny, how we’re charged more for less. But it gets worse. When one checks the nutrition label, there is a big surprise:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The 25% reduced sodium version has just as much salt as the regular version!

Interestingly the mouse print on the back of the label of their regular tomato soup claims that it has 42% less sodium than Campbell’s regular soup — a greater reduction in salt than their so-called reduced sodium product.

How does Campbell’s explain these discrepancies? Consumer reporter Michael Finney (who tipped us off to this story) of the local ABC affiliate in San Francisco asked them [ignore initial 15 second ad]:

(Here is a direct link to the story if you cannot access the video above.)

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Wal-mart Saves on Groceries, But You Call This Proof?

Over the past six months or so, Wal-mart has been advertising that families who spend a $100 a week on groceries could save $165 in three months if they shop at Wal-mart.

Now, there are two new versions of the ad that apparently started running nationally around February 16, 2010, making the claim “People who spent $100 a week at leading national supermarkets on frequently purchased groceries, could have saved $55 in one month by shopping at Wal-mart instead.”

*MOUSE PRINT:

Look at their disclaimer above.  Do you think there might be something a little fishy about the proof they offered for how they arrived at that claim?  Putting aside the issue that they don’t count meat, produce, and other weighed-to-order items which can be a substantial portion of one’s grocery bill, and that there really is no such thing as a “national supermarket” with locations in all states, look at when their survey was conducted.  It is for an almost six week period beginning January 31 and ending March 12, 2010. Check your calendar because it still is not March 12 yet!  So how does Wal-mart know the results of its price comparison a month before the comparison is over, and how can an as yet uncompleted survey be used to substantiate an advertising claim?

That question was posed to Wal-mart’s PR folks, who were invited to comment for this story twice.  No response was received. And the commercial is still running (it was on during 60 Minutes last night) despite Wal-mart being made aware of the problem one week ago.

It is also curious that the savings claimed last summer in a similar series of commercials — $165 for three months — works out to exactly $55 a month.  That is the very amount they are claiming to be the current monthly savings.  Have not grocery prices changed even a penny in six months?

Last June, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau ruled in a case about Wal-mart’s previously advertised grocery savings claims (similar to this commercial):

“NAD further determined that the claim ‘if you bought these kinds of groceries at Wal-Mart, you could save on average over $700 a year’ was not supported by the evidence in the record and therefore recommended that it be discontinued.”

So the “$55″ ad above is the new and improved version of the commercial?

Share this story:

 

ADV