False advertising is an issue that dates back to even before shady street vendors were hawking their tonics and wares; claiming that they were cure-alls for everything from hair loss to the plague. These days it's common knowledge that some advertisers will try to mislead audiences with overstated claims. Most countries and regions now have established regulations that prevent these types of deceptive ads. Yet for some reason, there still remains the odd case of a bold company trying to swindle their way past these rules.
One of the most notable examples of distorted statements is credited to the popular yogurt brand Activia by Dannon. Consumers were duped into paying more for Activia's implied nutritional benefits – when in reality there were no substantial benefits to choosing Activia over other kinds of yogurts at all. The brand had been falsely boasting about the “clinically” and “scientifically” proven health benefits of the product and even had a famous spokesperson, Jamie Lee Curtis, to endorse the message. After disproving the claim that the yogurt helped digestion and boosted immune systems, a class action lawsuit was filed. Dannon's ads directly contradicted legal clauses regarding professional or scientific claims in advertising and was forced to pay up to $45 million in damages. The company was also required to limit it's health claims on products to strictly factual ones.
Another prominent display of false advertising is seen in Olay's 2009 ad for its Definity eye cream. It features the former model (known for her captivating and dramatic eyes) Twiggy. Many found it hard to believe that a 61 year old woman could have such smooth skin and inquired about the photo. The enquiry revealed that the photo had been retouched. As a result of the retouching in this ad being a point-blank misrepresentation of the product's effectiveness, it was pulled by lawmakers. Authorities found this ad especially objectionable because of it's potentially negative impact on body images.

Nowadays, there is hardly any chance for advertisers to get away with sending out fraudulent messages. They face standards councils, scrutinizing competitors, and vigilant consumers who can research information at the touch of a keyboard. If an ad is found to misconstrue the truth, the scandal will instantly spread virally and be discredited. The lawsuits in turn will eliminate any profits gained from the campaign and often lead to the ruin of a companies image. Companies should instead be aiming to build a reliable and honest reputation. This is the much stronger strategy in the long run as it encourages customer loyalty and trust.

I want to make it clear that there is one exception to using exaggerated or vague claims in advertising. The legal term for this type of presentation is “puffery.” This occurs when a business uses a promotional statement that is so overdrawn that no “reasonable person” could possibly treat seriously or literally. These claims are often subjective and can't be proven, such as a restaurant saying that they serve “the world's best blueberry pie.”

When viewing advertisements, unsupported facts should be taken with a grain of salt. Don't be afraid to investigate things that seem too good to be true; it's possible that they aren't. Advertisers have a responsibility to adhere to the policies of ethics both morally and legally but consumers should also be aware that sometimes they have to read the fine print.

What is the average number of advertising messages we see in a day? A study by Yankelvich Research suggests it's anywhere between 3,000 to 20,000. Those numbers are remarkable but are they really an accurate depiction? The bloated statistics are due to the fact that this study includes every label on a piece of clothing you wear or see, all the ads in your mailbox, the broadcasts on your radio, the many billboards you pass, or every item of packaging you might cross on a trip to the grocery store, and so on.

Just because you are exposed to an advertisement, it doesn't mean that you have actually seen or even processed its content. A closer estimate to how many ads we experience everyday is around 247. Among those advertisements that we do acknowledge, half of them may still not be fully noticed on a cognitive level. Nevertheless that's a rather large number of ads to face each day, but what's truly remarkable is the amount of advertisements that we are ignoring on a daily basis.

People often complain that they are being overwhelmed by advertising competing to grab their attention. They consider most marketing to be junk mail or spam. Except one man's trash may be another man's treasure. Obviously not every product or service out there will be designed for you particularly, but there is likely to be a person who it does target. It takes less than 10 seconds for an individual to determine whether or not an ad appeals to them. If you aren't interested you'll tune out, click skip, or walk away. Though compelling advertising involves more than just offering the right product to the right person.

Above all, the purpose of advertisements is to motivate the audience to take action. An ad needs to be memorable and help the user retain important information. In order to make an ad that cuts through the great sea of mundane promotions it requires inspiration, creativity, humour, wit or another thoughtful strategy to elevate the message. Whatever tactic used, it's imperative that it relates back to the benefit being offered. This seems like straightforward advice but if more companies focused on quality over quantity we might not be as bombarded in our lives by ads. I say might because I also believe another reason why agencies place ads everywhere from buses to inside your tea cup is “because they can.”

A modern trend in commercial advertising is to trim down the content to a bare minimum. These streamlined and uncluttered advertisements are shown to be much more engaging. The compact presentation delivers the message efficiently without annoying the consumer. In a world with billions of advertising companies, dwindling attention spans, and the expectation of instant gratification – short and sweet is usually the best approach to advertising.

Using unexpected imagery or headlines grabs your attention because it breaks the social norms. They cut through the barrage of ads that you are faced with everyday due to the fact that these advertisements are so different. These aren't the types of messages you are used to seeing and that is why they become memorable.

It's no surprise that after seeing how effective this strategy is at getting attention, retail advertisers have started to apply it to their own campaigns. The debate with this issue is whether or not it is ethical for these companies to do so in order to sell a product or service.
My belief is that most of these offensive ads do more harm than good to a company. Sure, the controversy of these advertisements will spark viral publicity and conversation, but that doesn't equate to being a truly successful ad. Ads are ultimately meant to encourage people to buy a brand's product or service. Even if everyone is talking about your company it doesn't do any good if they aren't supporting it. It's certainly not true that “all publicity is good publicity.” An offensive campaign can have seriously negative effects on a brand. Although there are some people who enjoy going against the grain and will purposely go out of their way to purchase something simply because others disapprove of it; the major loss of customers, lawsuits, and censorship will trump the small worth of the endeavour.
Advertisers have a moral responsibility and legal obligation to uphold a certain level of ethics in their work. Most countries have set provisions about what is acceptable in advertising or not. The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards is a well-formulated outline that directly relates to the issue on what is considered an inadmissible ad. It also recognizes that advertisements may be distasteful without necessarily conflicting with any legal clauses. This means that if an ad is only unpalatable to a small amount of people, is not sufficient enough grounds for objecting to the advertisement unless it breaks the specified rules found below.

Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

The ads shown previously in this post are in clear violation of a few of these rules. Sisley's ad plainly condones the unlawful act of cocaine use by comparing it to the high that fashion lovers experience when shopping. The only other explanation is that they are discouraging this level of fashion obsession – which doesn't seem feasible since they are a clothing company. Belvedere's ad is so outrageous I find it hard to believe it was actually created. Not only does it make light of the serious issue of rape, it also demeans and oppresses women. Directly ridiculing half of the marketshare is never a good idea.

Shock advertising shouldn't be used as a cheap and immoral way to get attention. It sends the wrong message and can lead to the desensitizing of real issues. Advertisers must invariably keep the psychographics of their consumers in mind. This refers to the values, cultural beliefs, lifestyles, and attitudes that individuals hold. A tasteful ad should appeal to these attributes of the target audience in order to be successful. Most importantly, the message should always relate back to the core purpose or benefit of what is being sold. An ad that is so shocking that it overpowers the brand's original message is utterly pointless in regards to making a meaningful accomplishment.

Infidelity is a sensitive subject that most people have firm beliefs about. The majority of opinions will agree that being unfaithful to someone you have a commitment with is morally wrong and just about the worst thing you could do in a relationship. Despite this overwhelming social stigma, it isn't enough to stop individuals from betraying their partners. It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage. These numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce. What does this have to do with advertising? Well some are saying that certain companies are encouraging promiscuity through their ads. 

I don't think agencies should make such blatant statements about encouraging disloyalty that compares so closely to real adultery. Be that as it may, I don't have a problem with them directly saying you should leave your old brand for a new one. There are major differences between cheating on your partner and cheating on your laundry detergent brand. The number one reason being: changing between brands isn't going to seriously harm the feelings of anyone. And the second bit of logic is that no matter how much you try communicating with your detergent about how it isn't meeting all of your needs, it's not going to change. So while the shameless promotion of infidelity shouldn't be accepted, there is nothing wrong with companies claiming to be better than their competitors or tempting you to try their brand.

Subliminal advertising is a topic that has been causing people unease for over half a century now. Is there any real fact to this mind-controlling theory or is it just something being imagined by those who spend too much time over-analysing the media?

In modern media it seems as though more and more advertisers are trying to make us laugh. The most memorable ad campaigns often contain some sort of humour. In fact, it has been shown that humourous advertisements raise better brand recognition than those that are more serious. Humour gets people’s attention because we want to laugh, we want something to talk about, and it creates an element of humanity that engages us. With all these positives, why do so many marketers say to avoid it at all costs?

One of the first problems with humour is that it is mostly subjective. Everyone has his or her own personal taste and preferences on what is funny. One person might find a joke hilarious while another may be insulted by it. This has an especially negative effect if viewers are forced to see an ad repeatedly. If an ad is repeated too much, those who initially found it amusing may also start to find it unfavourable. Advertisers using humour in campaigns recurrently have to pay for extra ads so that their material doesn’t become stale.

Obesity has been on a steady rise in the last three decades and it is now reaching alarming levels. Over one billion adults are obese or overweight globally. An even more startling finding is that in a 2010 survey conducted by the World Health Organization, 43 million preschool children were reported to be obese or overweight. Researchers have been on the hunt for an explanation to this issue and are now linking the problem to advertising. The majority of food products (almost 90%) featured in various forms of advertising are high in calories and are not included in a balanced diet. It is a highly competitive market making it difficult to promote healthy food products. For each dollar invested by the World Health Organization for the promotion of healthy eating habits, the agri-food industry spends $500 to promote its processed products.


The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that watching several consecutive hours of television is unhealthy for children. In fact, for children under the age of two, the Academy recommends that they do not watch television at all. For older children, the maximum amount of television per day is one or two hours. Even by following these recommendations (though on average children are watching much more than that), if 25% of those hours watched are commercials, each child will have witnessed nearly 500 ads in a week. And that's only considering one of the multiple forms of media we are exposed to everyday. Today's children spend more time in front of a computer, television, and game screens than any other activity in their lives except sleep.

Why would advertisers target children though? Children's purchasing power is more significant than you might initially think. Studies have shown that nowadays children influence almost half of all family purchases. Not only do they affect family consumption choices, but they also have their own pocket money to spend. In Canada alone children spend and control a combined $24 billion of all annual purchases. A third of this money being directly spent on food and beverages. Besides the direct profits, their young and impressionable minds are also great foundations for building brand loyalty.

As a part of a study, researchers observed a group of children up to their adolescence in order to evaluate their choices in terms of brands. Half the brands selected once they had reached adolescence were already the subjects' number one choice during childhood. In truth, by age 10, a child has memorized between 300 and 400 brands. Another study discovered that infants as young as 6 months old are able to form mental images of logos and mascots. This isn't shocking news considering almost every preschooler you ask would be able to recognize Ronald Mcdonald's face.

If you are thinking that this seems morally wrong and something should be done to stop companies from preying on naive children; there are already movements in place to do so. People need to understand that it is an immense and complicated task to try to monitor all the different types of advertising. Most national regions have some sort of advertising rules and ethics to follow. Canada, for example, created it's own Code of Ad Standards in 1963 and even a specific Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children which are both updated regularly. Only a few places in the world such as Quebec, Norway, and Sweden have completely prohibited ads that are directed towards viewers younger than 13. Having so many different sets of laws related to advertising creates its own problem. Cross-country advertising, for example, occurs when foreign media enters another nation. The advertising protocol where the ad originated may vary from where the ad is broadcasted, but it is still possible for it to slip past the regulations.

The best protection for these vulnerable minds is to educate them. Knowledge really is power. Children should be taught about healthy eating as early as possible and the knowledge should be reinforced so that they will establish good habits for when they are older. They should also be taught about advertising to help them understand that not everything in the media is true.