Great Moments in False Advertising

When the pitch really is too good to be true: Low fat. No money down. Mission accomplished. Occasionally, the folks behind a product feel the need to paint a picture that isn't necessarily true to lure in the unsuspecting masses. Be it a purported discount price or a lab coat-clad actor in the commercial giving his "professional" opinion, false advertising comes in a multitude of flavors and ostensibly dates back to the Stone Age when a Neanderthal hyped a spear for its "state-of-the-art grip" and "35%-improved accuracy." Barely a week goes by without another company being accused or another class action settlement being doled out. Last year, Minyanville took a look at eight notable instances of false advertising, and here's more for you to enjoy. Airborne Maybe it's the depiction of the airplane passenger who just can't believe how many people around him are sick, but Airborne's claim that it "boosts the immune system with seven herbal extracts and a proprietary blend of vitamins, electrolytes, amino acids, and antioxidants" almost seemed too good to be true. Turns out, it was. A $30 million class action suit filed by the FTC determined "there is no credible evidence that Airborne products, taken as directed, will reduce the severity or duration of colds, or provide any tangible benefit for people who are exposed to germs in crowded places." Powerade The Cola Wars hit another fever pitch in 2009 when Coke and Pepsi had their sports drinks pitted against one another in a lawsuit filed by Pepsi. Coke was taken to task for claims made in its Powerade campaign which alleged that it was a superior drink because of two electrolytes missing in Pepsi's Gatorade: calcium and magnesium -- albeit in 0.5% daily recommended values. In the end, Powerade won the suit when the judge ruled Pepsi "[had] not shown either a likelihood of irreparable injury or a likelihood of success on the merits" and found the "failure to present any concrete evidence of harm" striking Target Even though we're moving into the second decade of the 21st century, the term "organic" is still considered a nebulous term given how often it's misappropriated. Part of the blame lies with Silk brand soy milk's now-discontinued "organic" label and a recent string of Target newspaper ads which mistakenly echoed the claim. The farm policy advocacy group Cornucopia Institute filed a complaint against the retailer after noting Silk has quietly moved to the "natural" classification, leaving it legally open to pesticides and unregulated chemicals. Legal action is still pending. Nike The Greek God of Victory wouldn't be Mark Kasky's first symbol choice for the company accused of turning a blind eye to sweatshops. After Nike vehemently denied news accusations that it tolerated sweatshop conditions in Asian countries via press releases, advertisements, and direct letters, Kasky filed a lawsuit claiming the company lied in its response -- which constituted false advertising. Since several investigations determined Nike does contract foreign factories with inadequate regulation, the California Supreme Court ruled against the company. The parties subsequently settled out of court after appeal. Procter & Gamble While some folks might have hate it, it wasn't because it was beautiful. An ad for Pantene Pro-V airing in China cast dubious claims about the shampoo, alleging it would "supplement amino acids to make hair stronger for a lifetime" and make it "up to 10 times" stronger. After numerous complaints questioned the ad's authenticity, a British advertising authority determined that the ad wouldn't be shown with those claims. A similar factual discrepancy in a Procter & Gamble ad dealt with a skin cream that claimed it would make skin look "12 years younger." Apparently, folks took issue with the specific time span. Dell Besides receiving one that refuses to work, realizing you've been overcharged for a tower or laptop is the most infuriating aspect of the computer-buying process. In 2008, a New York judge vindicated many scorned owners when he ruled Dell Inc. engaged in false advertising -- not to mention fraud, deceptive business, and abusive debt collection practices. Specifically, the offense entailed ads which promised "no interest" or "no payment" only to have customers slammed with higher rates via the company's financing arm. Johnson & Johnson Somewhere within that small porcelain container between the salt and pepper shakers, there's a multimillion-dollar race to be the number one sugar substitute -- and along the way, there will be lawsuits. Merisant, the company behind Equal, filed a suit against Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Nutritionals, which makes Splenda, for its slogan "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." Merisant -- and subsequently the jury -- contended that the slogan implied that Splenda was healthier than sugar, yet closer to sugar than its competitors. Both the settlement and the verdict were not read in court. Dannon Jamie Lee Curtis may have put on her most earnest face while running from Michael Myers or switching Paul Gleason's briefcase, but curled up on an evergreen couch and tucking into a carton of Activia? She's spouting some misinformation. Dannon agreed to settle a class action lawsuit out of court "to avoid the distraction and expense of litigation," according to a company spokesman. Health benefits like improving one's digestive tract's immune system was deemed false and was later altered to read the yogurt will "interact with your digestive tract's immune system." Microsoft Ever since the first Blue Screen of Death, Microsoft has been the whipping boy of the tech world -- but that isn't due to a lack of trying. In 2001, Microsoft found itself facing federal charges for a series of ads titled "Can Your Palm Do That?" which highlighted the many features found only on Windows-powered mobile devices. The problem: The features were only available after customers spent more for them -- just like the Palm. Wireless capability was touted as a PocketPC exclusive -- although one Palm device had it at no extra cost. After an FTC charge, the ads were pulled.

Is Free Television Heading For Extinction?

The 2010 Oscar program almost didn't happen for millions of TV viewers in the New York City area, in the latest high-stakes battle between media giants over the cost of TV programming. Why are these battles happening now, and who will ultimately win? Belinda Luscombe of Time reported that media companies are searching the ground for every revenue scrap they can find since being stung by the recession and the general - and apparently permanent - ebb of advertising dollars away from network TV. And their expensive-to-make network programming is a potentially juicy source. Whereas they used to pipe that content to cable companies for little or no cost, they now expect to be paid for it. Cable companies, not surprisingly, have resisted, asking why they should pay for content that's broadcast over the airwaves to non-cable subscribers for free. They say they already give companies like Disney, which owns ABC, plenty of money - Disney gets about $200 million a year from Cablevision alone, for the right to carry cable networks like ESPN and the Disney Channel. (ESPN is reputed to get $4 per month per subscriber, the highest of any cable channel.) And any increases in costs, they note, will likely be passed on to consumers. Nor is it just cable companies that are being hit with higher programming costs. As a satellite provider, DirecTV competes with cable companies and telcos to be the business that provides the signal to consumers' homes. It faces similar fees for carrying cable programming. In this dispute, ABC reportedly asked initially for about $1 per month per customer. Cablevision felt that that price, for programs that can be received for free over the air, was way too high. Negotiations, which have been going on for two years, came down to the wire as the telecast from Los Angeles' Kodak Theatre was underway. In a high-stakes game of chicken, neither side would budge, each one blaming the other for the impending blackout of one of the year's highest-rated programs. The negotations, which had been vigorous, became frantic. Minutes after the show started, Bob Iger, of ABC reportedly gave his OK from the red carpet, just in time for Penélope Cruz to glide onto the screens of Cablevision customers in the New York City area to present the award for Best Supporting Actor. Reports of the agreed-upon price between ABC and Cablevision varied widely but were not above 60 cents. In other words, the whole dispute was about a relatively nominal $18 million to $19 million a year. But that's just for one network in one market. Similar negotiations are likely to take place in major TV markets across the country. Moonves, one of the most enthusiastic proponents of getting cable companies to pay up, has said that by 2012, he expects CBS-owned stations to garner between $200 million and $250 million in retransmission fees from the cable giants and others. Analysts at SNL Kagan estimate that such fees will bring in north of $900 million for networks this year, not insignificant, but a fraction of the $28 billion expected to be brought in by cable networks. Nevertheless, providers like Cablevision, which are being asked to pay for something that used to be free, will vigorously oppose these moves. However, since cable providers operate at margins of about 40%, they can probably afford it. Who's going to win? A price war may be good for consumers, but the collateral damage in this battle will be the smaller content providers that are being paid but aren't bringing the audience- the cable providers will stop paying them. Ultimately, the cost will be passed on to the consumer. Meanwhile, the colorful spats between companies with plenty of broadcast capacity will continue to flare up. Fox had a similar altercation with Time Warner Cable in New York City in December, when Fox threatened to pull all its broadcast and cable channels if the cable company didn't pony up more money. As more contracts come up for renewal, more standoffs are expected - although few with such a glamorous sacrificial lamb as the Oscars at stake. Seems like "free" television is heading into extinction.

The Real Future Of Newspapers

Cory Treffiletti writes in MediaPost about what the future holds for newspapers. The newspaper, as it is defined today, offers two distinct products: local information and news. As it is defined today, the newspaper has no future to speak of, but the newspaper of tomorrow has -- if we examine these two divergent paths and follow them to a possible conclusion. The newspaper of tomorrow is going to break down into two distinct paths and only one of them includes paper of any form. Local information is always of value and this is the form that printed versions will likely take. In New York City we already see this happening with Metro and other papers that are handed out to subway riders at no cost. These papers portray themselves as news, but they are not as robust or as well editorialized in their news coverage as the longer-running and more established papers of the area. They do, however, offer wide reach, strong circulation and an outlet for local businesses to advertise to a specific audience. In the future one would imagine these papers focusing their content and advertising 100% on localized business and the immediate vicinity of the reader. Locally targeted advertising is big business and local readers will read a paper when they see value. Though mobile services like WHERE and Yelp offer local information, there is always something to be said for the tactile experience of holding a paper and ripping out local content of value. “I don't see the printed form becoming extinct anytime soon, but I do see it evolving in this way,” says Treffiletti. The second path that newspapers will follow is that of a trusted, credible source for the news and related editorial that can be distributed through digital methods and syndicated wherever the reader might be. From The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal down to The San Francisco Chronicle and The Times Union in Albany, newspapers offer an outlet for opinion as well as the news. In fact, providing different takes on news and issues so that you can form your own opinion is one of the best services that newspapers offer. And, try as they might and profess as they do, very rarely do these papers have a 100% objective point of view. They typically offer a slightly left- or right-leaning insight when they report the news, and that may be OK. We trust the stories we read in these papers because we know that, opinions aside, they are reported by journalists and not just by bloggers with a high school degree and a chip on their shoulder. Blogs may very well get the scoops, but newspapers get the professional journalists who can truly uncover the ins and outs of a story. It's a matter of trust. The future of newspapers may also overlap with those of the blogosphere. The best bloggers may be journalists in their own right who may do stories for one another, or create mutually beneficial partnerships. “If I were The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, I would start creating a network of approved bloggers to reciprocate content with, because that kind of relationship would bring instant credibility to the blogger and access to scoops and editorial that those old stalwarts of publishing could use!” says Treffiletti. If you can distribute your stories through a network such as this, then you can generate eyeballs; that's where the revenue still comes from in newspapers. For every article about the future of newspapers, you'll find another that predicts their death. Some say that nothing ever really dies in media, and idealistic stances are rarely right in the long run. Evolution is the name of the game. Though it's clear that newspapers have a ways to go to become profitable once again, there is a path (actually two) to follow. It will take strong leaders with a bold vision to make it happen.