In this threadFish Cheer made the comment that it’s forbidden in Germany to have a doctor, someone dressed as a doctor, or to quote a doctor in advertising for foodstuffs. That reminded me of something else I had heard at some time or another about German advertising, so I wanted to see if it’s true.
I heard (I have no idea where I heard it, but sometime 5-8 years ago I would wager) that in Germany, advertisers aren’t allowed to mention a competitor’s product, the competitor’s name, or even imply their competitor’s name/product. So here in the states, we have tons of ads where Coke and Pepsi not only mention how their product is beter than the other, but actually show the other product. In a recent Diet Pepsi commercial, they use a Diet Coke can as a “stunt double” for a Diet Pepsi can. In a recent car commercial I saw for Hyundai, they mention how it has more power than a Honda, more room than BMW, etc…
Even if they don’t mention them by name, they do things to let you know who they are talknig about. Pringles is notorious for this. They show the “other guy’s chips”, and while the bag doesn’t say Lay’s, it looks just liek a Lay’s bag.
So would these commercials be outlawed in Germany? If so, why? Is there a reason they have this rule/law in place? Is it a stagnent old law that no one likes but follows because no one can be bothered to get rid of it, a new law that everyone loves, something in between? And are there other countries that haev similar laws?
Yes, this used to be completely true. Some years ago this regulation was eased a little, but there are still many restrictions. Advertising that mentions competitors is only allowed to show “fundamental, relevant, verifiable and typical properties or the price of this good or service.” It’s not allowed to disparage competitors, their product or their brand.
There are some ads that compare hard facts (“A 10 minute phone call at 19:00 on weekdays using company X costs this and with us you will save 66%”) but it’s not that frequent. A joke where the laugh is on the competitor would be very problematic.
I can’t give you a definite reason but there is a general tradition of regulating competition in order to protect the consumers from all kinds of perceived danger. For example until a few years ago, rebates were tightly regulated as well in order to protect transparency.
I haven’t heard about a specific ‘doctor’ rule (I assume you refer to physicians - doctors certainly appear in ads, e.g. professional boxers Dr. Vitali Klitschko and his brother Dr. Vladimir Klitschko )
IANAL, the following is what I know as an interested German consumer who pays attention to the relevant press reports.
This may well correctly state the courts’ practice in applying the Law Against Unfair Competition (UWG), the main law covering unfair marketing practices, passed in 1909 and last changed in 2004. This law prohibits unfair/misleading advertising as a violation of fair competition, with civil penalties (it’s competitors and consumers’ associations who have legal standing to sue against violators, not consumers as such). Among the practices violating this statute are outright lying in advertising but also misleading advertising (having a physician endorse a product might be that, under the head of incorrectly indicating that the medical profession as such endorses it - I am not familiar with the courts’ handling of that questions). Other violations are undue appeals to emotions and exploiting consumers’ gullibility, also unduly intransparent rebate programs.
Regarding comparative advertising, what kellner said - only objective, verifiable properties to be compared; no disparaging. Comparative advertising used to be totally forbidden (until 2000) but that had to be changed to comply with EU law.
It’s a 1909 law that’s been changed reasonably often to reflect changing attitudes. The provisions as reflected by the usual interpretation of the courts are enforced reasonably well (not least because a successful suit against a competitor is a public embarassment to the latter). Consumers aren’t ravingly enthusiastic about the law but that’s mainly because it’s not often a public issue - they are not complaining either. Its provisions conform reasonably well to people’s ideas of what is objectionable behaviour in advertising.
The law says “ärztlich” and “Ausübung der Tätigkeit von Angehörigen der Heilberufe, des Heilgewerbes oder des Arzneimittelhandels”.
(“medical” and “performing the activity of medical professionals, the healthcare industry or traders in pharmaceutical products”, respectively - very rough translation)
I don’t think that “physician” fits that. But “doctor” doesn’t either.
for all my german speaking friends … the whole “cant do the medical doctor” thingy … resulted in a ton of ads where the doctors wive displayed as MD-assistent (als arztgehilfin) was asuming the authority …
Woman dressed as MD-Assistent: My husband recommends this toothpaste to all smokers …
there are all kinds of restrictions (which, given their historic context make or dont make sense) in europe … e.g. in some states you couldnt do ads longer than 30 secs or others regulate the use of comic figures in ads in children’s channels … e.g. Tigger cant endorse Cereal X after a show where Tigger appeared as the comic figure (as children cant understand that Kellog’s in paying license fees, and Tigger really doesnt like Cereal X so much)
It might also be worth noting that this is also true in the UK (although, as with Germany, this appears to have been relaxed slightly in recent years). Competing products will always be just Product X or ‘a leading brand’.
This sort of thing used to be rare-to-nonexistant in the US, too. Direct comparison against competing brands, while not illegal AFAIK, was just not part of the culture of marketing and advertising then. I remember, for instance, an Alpo dog food commercial where the imaginary competing brand was in a can that simply said “DOG FOOD”, but it looked to be a carefully professionally printed label they must have had printed up just for the commercial. I always thought it looked ludicrous, because any brand of dog food is more likely to have a label that emphasizes the name of the brand rather than the product itself.
I guess one could say our advertising went negative long before our politics did.
)