Puffery and deception is vastly used in the advertising of commercial products
There are countless methods that advertisers use to attract consumers to their products, and persuade them to make a purchase. One of the most commonly used ploys is puffery. Puffery is a promotional claim using subjective views rather than objective views; that is, views that cannot be proven right or wrong. It tends to be an "ethical and legal grey area." The company will "puff up" the product to make it seem like more than it really is. Due to the fact that puffery is not, in fact, illegal, companies these days are seemingly taking advantage of its use. Normally, puffery is used by way of an opinion, as seen with the Gillette
Deception on the other hand is when an advertisement provides false information. This becomes a more serious issue because it can entail legal ramifications. If the advertisements misleads the viewer in any material way, then its could potentially be considered illegal.
Gillette's "The best a man can get" advertising campaign is blatant puffery
Gillette is a company that produces men's shaving utensils in addition to a plethora of other personal care products. It was originally owned by The Gillette Company until 2005 when it was merged into the Proctor and Gamble company. Gillette's products have, for the past decade and beyond, been the most popular of its kind. In 1999, its estimated net-worth was $43 billion. Proctor and Gamble purchased the company for $57 billion. Today, one can only imagine how much Gillette is worth, but I can certainly tell you it is larger than than the sum P&G bought it for. Gillette is ranked number 18 on Forbes "World's Most Powerful Brands" list. There are multiple reasons for the companies success, although, probably the biggest contributor is the companies advertising.Normally, puffery is used by way of an opinion, as seen with Gillette's advertising campaign. Ever since the companies beginning, Gillette's slogan has been "the best a man can get." In doing so, Gillette is telling the world something that cannot be proven true or false. In saying that their products will provide a shave better than any other companies products could is simply an opinion put forth to attract potential buyers.
In the video above, Gillette, circa 1989, created a song about their irresistible shaving products that provide an irresistible outcome. It's hard to count how many times you hear the lyrics blaring "Gillette, the best a man can geettttt." The genius of these commercials is that no other personal care company is putting out anything like it. The lyrics are all a ploy to get viewers to purchase their items.
The video below is another commercial that Gillette released. The main point that I want to bring up in relation this video is the fact the Gillette is claiming that the shave its products provide will instill confidence in its user. Yes, confidence, you heard that correctly. Again, Gillette is using puffery because this statement is merely an opinion. It is troublesome to prove whether someone became confident after a shave right or wrong.
Gillette's use of puffery is legal and acceptable
The advertising campaign of Gillette seemingly falls into the aforementioned legal "grey area." Of course, Gillette has seen it's fair share of lawsuits, but none have had an outcome detrimental to the company. If Gillette's slogan had claimed that all men think their shave is the best a man can get, then you could be sure that the company would be in a large hole with many lawsuits coming. The reason for this is because the company is making a claim that, in this case, is blatantly false due to their inclusion that "all men" think this way. However, Gillette stays away from making a claim, and rather voices an opinion that fairly states what they believe.By definition, puffery does not mislead reasonable consumers. A reasonable consumer will not purchase a Gillette product solely based on the fact that they heard it is the best a man can get. A reasonable consumer will by Gillette because they want to for whatever reason, whether it be cost, availability, aesthetics, etc.
Puffery should not be addressed harshly
I agree with the three ethical norms of advertising listed by the American Marketing Association, as well as the advertising code of the American Advertising Federation. Doing no harm is very self-explanatory rule. When someone feels that puffery in an advertisement causes harm, that is when the lawsuits arise. In terms of the AFA, the code stating that advertising shall tell the truth and reveal significant facts is essentially one of the most fair statements they could make. Advertising can be funny, entertaining, and exciting, but there are some lines that should not be crossed: Gillette never crossed that line.
The headline of Jeremy’s post is very explanatory letting the reader know exactly what is going to be discussed in his post. Jeremy picked a great example of a company that uses puffery in their advertising. There was a great use of subheads for each section of the post. Also, the post contained very good, explanatory definitions of puffery and deception that made it easier to understand what he was talking about later in the post in which Gillette uses puffery. There was a grammatical error in the second subhead where he repeated than twice. Jeremy uses great commercial examples, both of which display Gillette’s use of puffery through the song and gaining confidence. The main points in the post were explaining how puffery and deception are different aspects used in advertising and how one is legal and the other is not. Also, how Gillette throughout the years has used puffery, but has yet to use deception. Finally Jeremy explains how puffery is legal and a well used tactic by advertisers and should not be looked on a bad way to advertise. The only thing I would add to this post is include the links of where you found out how much Gillette was worth and sold for. Jeremy did an overall very good job on his post.
ReplyDeleteI felt that Jeremy's title would have been explanatory if his readers understood what the word "puffery" was coming into the article. The average American does not take a Jour150 so they would not know the term from their elbow. I felt that he could have used a more universal euphemism for the term, like maybe "flattery". However, I do think that he made up for this by both defining it in his as well as setting the tone to his blog post in his first subhead of the blog. Jeremy did a great job choosing this company to get his point across because I felt that they are a great example of a company pushing their product on the masses through a blatant exaggeration of how a man should feel if he were to use the product. Jeremy also did a great job reiterating the fact that puffery is a matter of opinion and that the men who buy these products are doing so because they feel believe that the Gillette brand do in agree with what the company is pushing, there is no deception involved. Overall, I do think that Jeremy had a great blog post, the only thing I would change like I stated earlier would be the title and maybe include the link to the American Marketing Association and the American Advertising Federation to further improve his argument, who knows what the three ethical norms of advertising listed by these companies are?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete