Have you seen the recent ads for HP ink cartridges? Apparently they give you 65% more pages printed than those “bargain” brainds.
To illustrate, they show two peacocks unfolding their plumage. One is clearly suppsed to be the bagain brand, and the other is HP. Except that the HP one doens’t display 65% more plumage, it displays about 500% more. Then they cut to two stacks of paper, again with one being the bargain brand and another being HP. The HP stack is 3 times the size, if not more, than the bargain brand one.
Apparently, 65% more just isn’t enough to convince customers, you have to ridicuoulsy exaggerate it with illustrations.
And from everyone who’s ever installed the HP printer software…fuck you, HP.
Why would that be illegal? They’re giving you the bald figures right there in big bold type! If they just said, “HP ink cartridges will print lots more” and showed a stack of paper three times the size, that would be misleading.
Because it’s still false or misleading. And why do they tell lies like this?
(1) Because they can get away with it.
(2) Because they sell more by giving an untrue impression of how good their product is.
Caffine would be nice. On first read I got “bald fingers in bold type!”. It left me wondering what kind of weird of fingers you have in Florida where you’d need to specify they were hairless.
Anyway it’s the whole setup is wack. If they say it’s 65% then they should show 65%, not 300%. How is 300% related to the product in an honest way?
My fingers aren’t hairless. I’ve got little soul patches on the backs of my index, middle, ring and little fingers between the first and second knuckles. Not on the thumb, though.
They do show 65%. They also show a peacock with 300% more feathers, but they would argue that they’re just showing a peacock with more feathers. Let’s face it - you have no idea how many extra feathers their peacock has.
Hey, so do I! I thought I was some kinda freak until that was one of the variants we learned about in genetics class (like attached/dangling earlobes, hitchhiker’s thumb, etc.). Hairy digits 4evah!!!
I haven’t seen the commercial so I took the OP’s word for it when he said 3 times more. IF the actual commercial just shows 65% more pages then that isn’t misleading. IF however it shows 300% then that is misleading.
I bloody well know how much bigger triple the size is verses 1.65 times the size.
Is that 65% more pages for the same cost? Or 65% more pages for only 50% more cost? Or what? Telling you 65% more ink (or pages) gives you nothing, really, to use as a valid yardstick.
I’m sure it does fool some people, but I’m much less worked up about an ad that contains an exaggeration and the truth than I am about ads which are nothing but lies - Enzyte (well, so I hear), for example, or pretty much any product which requires an informercial, come to that.