The end of the infomercial as we know it?

[mhendo]

No, i don’t mean that they will go away, but with new FTC advertising guidelines released this week, it looks like some companies are going to have to make a radical shift in the way they deliver their message.

FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.

You can read the whole (81-page) document here (PDF). Some of the most relevant stuff includes:

The critical question for determining whether an ad is deceptive under Section 5 of the
FTC Act – for all advertising, whether or not testimonials are involved – is what is the net
impression consumers take away from the ad as a whole. The revised language in Section 255.2
would come into play only if a truthful testimonial: (1) conveys to consumers that the
testimonialist’s results are “representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the
advertised product or service in actual, albeit variable, conditions of use”; and (2) the advertiser
does not have adequate substantiation for that claim. In other words, the Guides call for a
disclosure only if the ad is misleading (and thus not protected by the First Amendment ) without
a disclosure. On the other hand, if the advertisement, taken as a whole, does not convey an
unsubstantiated, and thus misleading, message of typicality, no disclosure is necessary

p. 28.

So, basically, under the new guidelines you can no longer put some schlub who lost 185 pounds using the SuperSlimmer 4001 on your commercial and get away with it by putting a small “Results not typical” disclaimer down at the bottom of the screen. And you can’t advertise your StockTraderXtreme Wealth Building Kit using testimonials from some guy who makes $20,000 a month with it, and simply use the “Results not typical” disclaimer to disguise the fact that most of your customers make about $3.79 a month.

Atypical results can still be used, but if they are, then “the ad should clearly and conspicuously disclose” (p. 36) what sort of results a typical customer can expect.

I’m a little torn on this. On the one hand, i think it’s an awesome idea, and that it will help to curb some pretty fucking misleading advertising practices. On the other hand, i tend to think that anyone who believes that the results shown on those advertisement are actually typical probably deserves to lose their money.

[Captain_Awesome]

Why do people less intelligent than yourself deserve to lose their money in the face of manipulative half-truths?

[mhendo]

@Captain_Awesome

Why do people less intelligent than yourself deserve to lose their money in the face of manipulative half-truths?

Well, that was tongue-in-cheek hyperbole intended to maybe start a debate, because i’m sure that some people will oppose this ruling.

I actually think it’s an excellent move by the FTC, and i’m very happy that these shysters are finally getting reined in a bit. This current set of guidelines replaces rules that have been in place since 1980, and i’m amazed that it’s taken almost three decades to revise them.

Still, while my comment was somewhat hyperbolic, i’m still amazed, in our media-saturated society, how many people are not even functionally media-literate, how many people believe every outrageous claim and every wild promise they see on television. And i also sometimes wonder, in a society that values free speech, how much we should restrict this sort of thing in order to protect people from the consequences of their own credulity.

[Tranquilis]

All I want to know is this:

Will this finally put an end to the Penis Enlargement adverts?

[Valgard]

@Tranquilis

All I want to know is this:

Will this finally put an end to the Penis Enlargement adverts?

And will they have to have a “Babe not typical” caption by the leering female model and a normal-looking human being there with “Average girl you will meet” on the bottom of the screen?

[Captain_Awesome]

@mhendo

Well, that was tongue-in-cheek hyperbole intended to maybe start a debate, because i’m sure that some people will oppose this ruling.

Advertisers and neo-liberal types might feel stung, but don’t feel too sorry for them, they get paid lots to think up more nuanced circumventions to this set of rules.

@mhendo

Still, while my comment was somewhat hyperbolic, i’m still amazed, in our media-saturated society, how many people are not even functionally media-literate, how many people believe every outrageous claim and every wild promise they see on television. And i also sometimes wonder, in a society that values free speech, how much we should restrict this sort of thing in order to protect people from the consequences of their own credulity.

Ideally everyone would be gifted with flawless critical thinking skills, and would be suitably derisive about all outrageous claims (even those outside of television advertising). Still whilst I wait for this utopia I’m happy for the man to stick it to the other man.

[Taber]

The cynic in me says that infomercials will still find a way to lie, and people will be more apt to believe them because now “they can’t say it if it isn’t true.”

[Serenata67]

@Valgard

And will they have to have a “Babe not typical” caption by the leering female model and a normal-looking human being there with “Average girl you will meet” on the bottom of the screen?

They would need to put that disclaimer on the bottom of almost every sitcom. At least the ones with the schlubby husband and hot wife formula…

(Okay, before anyone jumps down my throat, I realize that sitcoms are not trying to portray anything as fact, they’re not infomercials, etc. I guess we have to use disclaimers on the SDMB, too…)