Policy Claim Essay

Deceptive Labels: How Advertisers Hide Misleading Facts

On an eye level shelf, in a well-known store, sits a bottle. It is a slender, bright red bottle;
with a label that boasts REMOVES ANY AND ALL STAINS! People walk past this bottle,
but its color and shape catch their eye. Many shoppers decide to purchase this item, including a
mother who buys it for her toddlers food stained clothes, and a young male athlete who buys it
for his grass stained uniform. Upon returning home and beginning to use the product, the two
consumers run into the same problem, it is not removing the blemishes from their clothes. They
have a closer look at the label, and see an asterisk with an annotation on the back that reads,
Only removes 50% of certain stains. Deceptive labeling is on nearly everything we buy now a
days. Sometimes, we cannot even understand the ingredients in food, make-up, shampoo,
medication, etc. Advertisements that we are supposed to be able to trust usually do not always
give the whole truth. Items with these kinds of ads are why many people all over the country
even the world spend thousands of dollars on ineffective products, which is exactly what the
companies want consumers to do. We, the public, need to do our part to stop this. Whether it be
as small as not purchasing these products for ourselves and our household or becoming part of a
group that lets the big corporations, who create and manufacture these products, know we want
this deception to stop. Deceptive labels are causing the public to spend too much money on


unproductive items, therefore, support needs to be given to groups who will stop corporations
from using false advertisements.
The first thing many consumers look for in a product is the claim it makes. They ask
themselves questions such as, Will this help me? and they search the label for an answer to this
questions. Seeing a key word like help signals that an answer has been found but, in many
cases this is not true. In his essay, Weasel Words: The Art of Saying Nothing at All, William
Lutz makes the argument that help is the number one weasel word. We see it everywhere,
from medication bottles that claim they help relieve cold symptoms to fuel efficient tires that
claim to help you save money. He says it is because that one word gives readers a message
that is not actually there. It will only assist or aid in a process not do it all for the costumer. Lutz
also states that help is often combined with fight or control, helps control symptoms not stop
or eliminate them. He mentions many other words that advertisers use to try to confuse and
deceive us, some of which are: virtually, new and improved, acts & works fast, (works) against,
(works) for, (works) with, like magic, significant value, can be, up to, and many more (Lutz 443-
444). Sellers understand the processes and connections that go on in buyers minds when they
read words like these and they use that false advertising to make sure their products are bought.
The advertisers know that the public will immediately go for a product that says it will do
whatever the consumers need it to do. For example, they are depending on things like hand
sanitizer to keep them safe from bacteria and the product itself does not actually kill as many


harmful germs as the packaging suggests. The New York Times reported that these products
(hand sanitizing foams and gels) contain much less than the 60% minimum alcohol concentration
needed to eliminate bacteria and viruses. That does not stop hand sanitizer makers from claiming
that their products can prevent infection from Salmonella, E. coli and the H1N1 virus (Wong).
So as long as they continue to believe the labeling, consumers are partially at fault. The other
side that is to blame is the company. A lot of what people choose to buy has to do with
packaging, and the producers know this, so they create attractive, colorful, enticing labels. It
does not matter that it might not work or be exactly as described, because the eye catching colors
and perfect placement are convincing enough to make most people buy the product. Researchers
conducted experiments to see where most costumers look on the shelves, they have found that
people usually do not see one-third of the brands displayed (Young). This means eye-level is the
prime spot for advertising. Another big part of display is the color schemes. Studies have
revealed that impulsive shoppers go for red, orange, black and royal blue. While careful
shoppers prefer pink, teal, light blue and navy (Vale). Advertisers distract the consumers eyes
from the false claims with these deceptive tricks.
Hidden ingredients are another very important piece to deceptive advertising. The
companies promote the product through the labels, and they basically have creative freedom over
what they display on those labels; with the exception of regulations from the FTC, or Federal
Trade Commission. Under the Federal Trade Commission Act: advertising must be truthful and


non-deceptive, advertisers must have evidence to support their claims, and advertisements cannot
be unfair. It goes on to mention more specific things that have been added as time progressed
and violators found ways to get around these vague rules, as they continue to do today. Some of
the details include questions like, What makes an advertisement deceptive? What makes an
advertisement unfair? How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive or unfair? What kind of
evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads? Of course the answers to these
questions are again vague, for example, the first question posed, What makes an advertisement
deceptive? is replied to with the answer of an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement- or
omits information that: is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the
circumstances; and is material - that is, important to the consumers decision to buy or use the
product. What this means is that if the consumer is not acting reasonably while using the
product, and it does not do what they expected, it is technically not deceptive. But in these type
of cases, who defines acting reasonably? Or the circumstances? They also establish what makes
an advertisement unfair by saying, an ad or business practice is unfair if: it causes or is likely
to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and is not
outweighed by the benefits to the consumers (Advertising FAQs). Again, they blame the
consumer for not being reasonable, and this time the FTC states that if the benefits provided to
the consumer outweigh the unfairness of the ad, it cannot be labeled as deception. All the rules
stay very broad so that the companies can make arguments in their own favor.
What about those people who prefer brand over effect? While it is true that some
consumers only buy brand name products whether or not they work as advertised or not, that


does not mean they WANT to be swindled. In the essay titled Lead Us into Temptation by
James B. Twitchell, this idea is presented. He says that the Nike swoosh, the Polo pony, the
Guess? label, and the DKNY label are what (consumers) are after. They are not duped by
advertising, packaging, branding, fashion, or merchandising. They actively seek and enjoy what
surrounds the object (Twitchell). But this does not prove they know enough to want the product
or labels to change. Maybe if they realized what is in some of the items they buy, they would
stop purchasing them. For example, how many people would no longer buy Nike cleats if they
knew some designs are made of kangaroo hide? Nike's high-budget ad campaigns tell readers
it really cares about athletic performance and comfort But deviously leave out that some of
their loyal costumers favorite products are created by killing marsupials (Bravo).
This is all very detrimental to the consumer. How? Well obviously as shoppers, we are
spending all kinds of money on products that do not work as they say they do, for example we
are buying expensive face creams that are said to reduce wrinkles, but probably do not. Not only
that, think about what those chemicals are doing to everybodys skin, hair, nails, and body; they
are not natural and are more than likely harming our organs. Methyl, propyl, butyl, ethyl
parabens: Common preservatives used in all toiletries, dental and hair products. They are linked
to allergic skin reactions and may be potential carcinogens. Formaldehyde: Widely used in
toiletries such as deodorants and nail varnish as a germicidal, fungicide and preservative. A


potential carcinogen, it may trigger asthma and damage DNA (Workingboxwalla). Such
products are purchased for what they advertise, not for what they do not advertise, which are the
hidden things: ingredients, promises, messages, etc.
There are many ways to begin trying to fix this situation. First of all, buyers need to
carefully read the labelling, they should be asking themselves questions such as: How does the
front or outside of the packaging compare to the back/ inside of it? We also need to be educated
on what those strange words mean. Maltodextrin, riboflavin, benzoate, dimethicone,
methypropional, etc. (LaRochelle). Not many people actually know what these words mean. So
maybe if we took some, even just a little, time to learn more about what is in the products we use
every day we would make better choices as to what we order when we purchase from the
stores. Because every time we buy something, we are, essentially, ordering more of it from the
producers, and asking them to make and stock more of it at our local grocery, beauty or
household product supply store.
But not everyone is going to do this; because, of course we all still have to use shampoo
and detergent, we all still have to buy medication and food, therefore, we all cannot reasonably
boycott these products. To be honest, almost no one has the time (or will take the time) to
research every little ingredient in all the items they have bought or want to buy before they
actually make the purchase. So what are the other options? Joining or supporting a group that is
dedicated and focused enough to keep this issue on the front page. This is probably the best idea,
because some groups dedicate all their time and energy to getting an issue corrected, for it is


something they believe in and they are more determined than the average person to fix the
matter. Maybe one does not have the time to volunteer for such things, but does have the
income, so they should donate money to fund the project. Or vice versa, someone who cannot
donate any money, but can spare some time, would be encouraged sign up for rallies or make an
appointment with a local representative or company manager to discuss these issues.
Advertisers use so many techniques to lure in customers, they insult the consumers
intelligence, they hide things in fine print, and they violate or bend laws. To be fair, it is not all
their fault; the consumers tend fall for and believe most of it without investigating it for
themselves. But the companies do need to take some responsibility for what is happening. At
some point the packaging went from real and true, (which is what the people expected and still
expect) to false and fake. And they put all the pressure on the consumers to notice when that
happened and decide for themselves what they want to buy still, but without letting them know
that a major change had occurred. The developers need to acknowledge that what their products
are labelled as doing, is not always accurate, and re-think what they release to the public. But in
order for that to happen, the public themselves need to make it known that they do indeed want a
change to happen, or the producers will think everything is fine just as it is. If they had helped
stop companies from making deceptive advertisements or if they had been educated on the topic,
the consumers who bought the falsely advertised stain remover, the mother and the young
athlete, might have realized that the product was presented at eye level for a reason. And that the
label was not red just because the creators picked a random color. All components of ads have a


purpose, but if the motives remain deceptive or become true, will be based on the actions of
everyone, from big companies to small individuals.


















Works Cited
"Advertising FAQ's: A Guide for Small Business." BCP- Advertising FAQ's: A Guide for Small
Business. BCP- Bureau of Consumer Protection, Apr. 2001. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
Bravo, Kristina. "These Supercomfy, High-Performance Shoes Are Made With...Kangaroo
Skin?!" TakePart. Participant Media, 21 Mar. 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
LaRochelle, Mark. "The Fine Print." Consumers' Research Magazine 83.5 (2000): 31. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Lutz, William. Weasel Words: The Art of Saying Nothing at All. Language Awareness:
Readings for College Writers. Eds. Paul Eschholz, Alfred Rosa, Virginia Clark. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. 442-451. Print.
Twitchell, James B. Lead Us into Temptation Language Awareness: Readings for College
Writers. Eds. Paul Eschholz, Alfred Rosa, Virginia Clark. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins,
2009. 442-451. Print.
Vale, Stella. "Most Attention-Grabbing Colors." Houston Chronicle-Small Business. Demand
Media, 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.


Workingboxwalla, Dr. Dinyar. "Do You Know about These Harmful Ingredients in Your
Cosmetics?" The Health Site. India.com, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Wong, Sterling. "10 Products with Outrageous Claims." MSNMoney. Minyanville, n.d. Web. 12
Apr. 2014.
Young, Scott. "Five Principles for Effective Packaging Research." Brand Packaging Magazine
Jan.-Feb. 2005: 24-26. PRS-Perception Research Services. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Darke, Peter R, Laurence Ashworth, and Robin J.B Ritchie. "Damage From Corrective
Advertising: Causes And Cures." Journal Of Marketing 72.6 (2008): 81-97.
Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Editorial: Misstep in FTC Diet Claim Fight." Advertising Age Viewpoint RSS. Ad Age, 25 Nov.
2002. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
"Fooled by Food Labels: 9 Deceptive Claims to Watch Out For." CNCA Health Articles. CNCA
Health, Apr. 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.