Deceptive Advertising Try the new Taco Bell’s seasoned beef! This was the advertisement Taco Bell used in 2011. Ironically, Taco Bell’s meat has just 35% beef. The Alabama firm sued Taco Bell for using more fillers than meat. Taco Bell used between $3 million and $4 million to refute the allegations. The company also launched a “Thank you for suing us” full-page newspaper to mitigate the disaster (NPR, 2011). This is a clear example how companies use deceptive advertisements to sell their products, and even to try and recover from a suit. The profession that is in charge of the business practices to sell a product or service is Marketing. Marketers create a strategy to persuade the customer to buy a product. Marketing uses advertisements
…show more content…
Deceptive advertising means transmitting false statements or omitting material facts to trick the customer to buy the product. If a company uses false statements in their ads, it can be suit. The dilemma is: using deceptive advertisements is a correct thing to do? One example of a company that used deceptive advertisements and got sued is Splenda. “The Sugar Association says Splenda 's ‘Made from Sugar’ slogan is misleading, and that the sweetener is nothing more than highly processed chemical compound made in a factory" (CBS News, 2004). This type of deceptive advertising is falsity; it means that the information in the slogan is false. In 2004, Equal, a sugar competitor sued Splenda leading consumers to doubt if the product was healthy. Furthermore, Splenda changed its slogan. This is an example of how competition is thought in companies. Not only can the clients sue the company, but the competitors too. The marketing department has to be very careful on not giving false information because it can lose the credibility from customers and money. Splenda is an example of how even important brands use deceptive advertisements. Another example of how brands use misleading advertisements is Old Spice. In a commercial it quotes “Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady” (Youtube, 2010). The type of deceptive claim is implication, and it leads to subjective speculations. Old Spice uses the sense of humor to mask deceptive advertising. However, no one sued the brand because no one expects to make everything possible by just using a deodorant. Legally and ethically, the limits of deceptive advertising are not clear. The commercial received 43,600,000 views and won the Grand Prix (Advertising Age, 2010). This is a contrast of the result of Splenda’s advertising. Basing on two examples, we can see how deceptive
Deceptive advertising means transmitting false statements or omitting material facts to trick the customer to buy the product. If a company uses false statements in their ads, it can be suit. The dilemma is: using deceptive advertisements is a correct thing to do? One example of a company that used deceptive advertisements and got sued is Splenda. “The Sugar Association says Splenda 's ‘Made from Sugar’ slogan is misleading, and that the sweetener is nothing more than highly processed chemical compound made in a factory" (CBS News, 2004). This type of deceptive advertising is falsity; it means that the information in the slogan is false. In 2004, Equal, a sugar competitor sued Splenda leading consumers to doubt if the product was healthy. Furthermore, Splenda changed its slogan. This is an example of how competition is thought in companies. Not only can the clients sue the company, but the competitors too. The marketing department has to be very careful on not giving false information because it can lose the credibility from customers and money. Splenda is an example of how even important brands use deceptive advertisements. Another example of how brands use misleading advertisements is Old Spice. In a commercial it quotes “Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady” (Youtube, 2010). The type of deceptive claim is implication, and it leads to subjective speculations. Old Spice uses the sense of humor to mask deceptive advertising. However, no one sued the brand because no one expects to make everything possible by just using a deodorant. Legally and ethically, the limits of deceptive advertising are not clear. The commercial received 43,600,000 views and won the Grand Prix (Advertising Age, 2010). This is a contrast of the result of Splenda’s advertising. Basing on two examples, we can see how deceptive